BASIC Lab: a software tool for supporting the production of knowledge in research organizations through the management of scientific concepts

Abstract

Purpose-The important role of publicly funded basic research has been widely recognized. The knowledge produced is made available to society, who could use it for innovation and in this way contribute to economic growth. Thus, it is important to support scientific activities. Proposes to examine how researchers could profit from approaches such as knowledge management. Design/methodology/approach-Some research organizations were studied and their knowledge management practices analyzed. Special attention was paid to the realization of research projects. Findings-An approach is proposed based on the capitalization of all the artifacts managed during the bibliographical activities performed by researchers. Research limitations/implications-At the current state of advancement of the project, only a prototype of the software tool has been developed. Originality/value-As sociology studies have observed that a fundamental aspect of science is the modification and construction of new concepts, it is proposed to include the support of the management of scientific concepts as a way of assisting this knowledge production process. In conclusion this work gives the basis of the definition of a software tool that should help to accomplish this activity.

Artifacts in knowledge management research: a systematic literature review and future research directions

“…Major contributions included articles where the notion of artifacts was used to develop ideas, although it did not represent the core argument. Examples included articles on software development or applications, such as Jaime et al (2005) and Venturini and Benito (2015). Additional examples included Evans and Alleyne ( 2009) and Gardner ( 2013), among others.…”

The role of collaborative knowledge building in the co-creation of artifacts: influencing factors and propositions

“…These articles focused on circuits of learning (Fosstenløkken, 2015) that influenced an object (i.e. artifact) co-creation and transformation; group sensemaking as a basis for knowledge creation and sharing (Nosek, 2004); the interplay between individual and collective knowledge for learning and knowledge building (Kimmerle et al , 2010) and corporate and organizational memory impacts on research activities and artifacts (Jaime et al , 2005). Although these articles focused on different aspects of the co-creation process, they provided valuable insights to incorporate cognitive factors into a refined conceptual framework for the analysis of collaborative knowledge building.…”

“…At the macro level structural, behavioral and cognitive factors were identified and discussed. These factors included: structural factors, such as organizational rules (Shariq, 1998; Schwabe and Salim, 2002; Kim et al , 2002) and workplace setting (Aarrestad et al , 2015; Padova and Scarso, 2012; Jiang et al , 2010; Lamproulis, 2007); behavioral factors, such as organizational culture (Lamproulis, 2007; Padova and Scarso, 2012; Kim et al , 2002; Pandey and Dutta, 2013); and cognitive factors, such as learning and memory (Fosstenløkken, 2015; Jaime et al , 2005; Nosek, 2004). …”

“…cognitive factors, such as learning and memory (Fosstenløkken, 2015; Jaime et al , 2005; Nosek, 2004).…”

“…At the macro level, several factors were discussed, including organizational rules (Shariq, 1998; Schwabe and Salim, 2002; Kim et al , 2002) as crucial factors to enhance clarity of project outcomes (Schwabe and Salim, 2002); workplace setting (Aarrestad et al , 2015; Padova and Scarso, 2012; Jiang et al , 2010; Lamproulis, 2007) as a collaborative space to enhance connectivity in knowledge creation (Aarrestad et al , 2015, p. 88) and contribute to shared meanings of actions and behaviors (Lamproulis, 2007); organizational culture (Lamproulis, 2007; Padova and Scarso, 2012; Kim et al , 2002; Pandey and Dutta, 2013) as a means to define context of behavior and corresponding relationships (Padova and Scarso, 2012) although a potential problematic key driver of organizational change (Padova and Scarso, 2012; Kim et al , 2002) and organizational learning and memory (Fosstenløkken, 2015; Nosek, 2004; Kimmerle et al , 2010; Jaime et al , 2005) that were proposed to have a crucial impact on research activities and artifacts. From a structural perspective, it would be, thus, interesting to investigate some of these proposed relationships, for instance: do organizational rules and workplace setting influence teamwork activities in collaborative knowledge building?…”