**7. References**

Aalst, W. M. P. (2002). Making Work Flow: on the Application of Petri Nets to Business Process Management. En: J. Esparza, C. Lakos (Eds.): Lecture Notes in Computer

(organizational learning). Individuals learn from their experiences and errors, teams learn from shared experiences and work in groups and organizations learn from the activities and business processes that take place as part of their daily dynamic, in all these cases the

For learning to occur in the organization is necessary to establish the structures and mechanisms to convert knowledge of individuals and teams into collective knowledge. It is not sufficient to know that the organization learns from its experience, letting the learning and knowledge acquisition are developed in natural and spontaneous form, but to maximize learning the organization needs to develop relational contexts, workflows and formal learning processes, which help to institutionalize the knowledge so that it can be shared and used by the entire organization. In this sense, the organization should develop a

For the organization learn it is necessary to consider the perspectives: strategic, organizational, technological and human resources. In the strategic perspective will be necessary to align the organizational learning strategy with business strategy and objectives, in the organizational perspective will have been to create the structures and formal processes that support the learning strategy, in terms of technology will be require put into serve of the organization the technological advances to manage and share knowledge (collaborative systems and knowledge bases) and in the perspective of human resources will be necessary to coordinate human capital in a context of learning and knowledge sharing. Along the chapter has addressed all these issues and how organizations can acquire knowledge through the analysis of experience in their activities. It has presented a methodology based on the procedures of the nuclear industry that allows other companies to implement programs of knowledge acquisition and organizational learning. The organizational learning model has been presented allows to obtain a valuable information from the analysis and evaluation of daily experience, processes that together with taking preventive, corrective and training actions, can improve greatly the efficiency of operative and management processes, avoiding future non-compliance, human errors and potentially

The model of knowledge acquisition and organizational learning proposed has interest as empirical study, because it has been implemented successfully in the nuclear industry. This work has relevance to the business community because the model has been presented can be applied to other companies and activity sectors with the adaptations required for each particular business context. From an academic perspective, the case study makes contributions that allow contrast some of the theories of organizational learning and knowledge management have been shown in the review of literature, and may help to infer

This work has been possible thanks to the financing provided by Nuclenor, that has allowed the development of knowledge that has been presented and apply it in the own company through various research projects, and also thanks the support for the research provided by

Aalst, W. M. P. (2002). Making Work Flow: on the Application of Petri Nets to Business

Process Management. En: J. Esparza, C. Lakos (Eds.): Lecture Notes in Computer

dangerous state for people, structures and components of the organization.

experience is a key element of learning.

core competency, learn to learn.

theory from practice in future works.

the Leonardo Torres Quevedo Foundation.

**6. Acknowledgment** 

**7. References** 

Science, Vol.2360, pp. 1-22: *23rd International Conference on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets*, Adelaide, Australia, Junio 2002. Springer Verlag.


Assessment of Operational Experience as Strategy

enero – febrero, No. 155, pp. 4-7.

Doctoral Tesis. Sussex University. U.K.

*Capital Humano*, No. 208, pp. 68-82.

*Science*, No. 5, pp. 14-37.

pp. 45-52. JAI Press, Inc.

Mathematik, Bonn.

*Externa*. Nuclenor.

Quinn, J. B. (1992). *Intelligent Entreprise*. Free Press.

*Information Systems*, pp. 3-19.

pp. 54-68. Universitetsforlaget. Bergen. Noruega.

*of Information Management*, Vol. 21, pp. 123-135.

pp. 319-340.

pp. 69-80.

for Knowledge Acquisition and Learning in Organizations 147

Levitt, B. & March, J. G. (1988). Organisational Learning. *Annual Review of Sociology*, Vol. 14,

Lueg, C. (2002). Presentación. Gestión del Conocimiento y Tecnologías de la Información:

March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (1976). *Organizational Learning and the Ambiguity of the Past*. In:

Marchand, D. A.; Kettinger, W. J. & Rollins, J. D. (2000). Information Orientation: People,

Marengo, L. (1991). *Knowledge, Coordination and Learning in an Adaptive Model of the Firm*.

Mentzas, G.; Halaris, C. & Kavadias, S. (2001). Modelling Business Processes with

Moreno, M. J. & Pelayo, Y. (2007). Thalec: Modelo para la Gestión Interna del Conocimiento.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation. *Organisation* 

Nonaka, I. & Ichijo, K. (1997). *Creating Knowledge in the Process Organization*. In: Shrivastava,

Nonaka, I. & Johansson, J. K. (1985). Japanese Management: What about the "Hard" Skills?.

Nonaka, I.; Reinmoeller, P. & Senoo, D. (1998). The "Art" of Knowledge: Systems to Capitalize on Market Knowledge. *European Management Journal*, Vol. 16, No. 6., pp. 673-684. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). *The Knowledge-Creating Company*. Oxford University Press.

Pedraja, L.; Rodríguez, E. & Rodríguez, J. (2009). La Influencia de la Gestión del

Petri, C. A. (1962): Kommunikation mit Automaten. PhD thesis, Institut für Instrumentelle

PG-017 (2007). *Seguimiento de Normativa y Tratamiento de la Experiencia Operativa Interna y* 

Sadiq, S. W. & Orlowska, M. E. (2000). On Capturing Exceptions in Workflow Process

Models. *Business Information Systems, 4th International Conference on Business* 

Redding, J. C. & Catalanello, R. F. (1994). *Strategic Readiness*. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. Revilla, E. (1995). *Factores Determinantes del Aprendizaje Organizativo: un Modelo de Desarrollo* 

*de Productos*. Doctoral Tesis. Valladolid University. Spain.

Conocimiento sobre la Eficacia Organizacional: un Estudio en Instituciones Públicas y Empresas Privadas. *Revista Facultad de Ingeniería*. No. 47, pp. 218-227. Pérez, D. & Solana, P. (2011). *CRM 2.0 and E-government: Challenges for Public Administration* 

*and Social Effects*. Chapter six, in: Colomo-Palacios, R.; Varajão, J. & Soto-Acosta, P. (2012). *Customer Relationship Management and the Social and Semantic Web: Enabling* 

Newell, A. (1982). The Knowledge Level. *Artificial Intelligence*, No. 18, pp. 87-127.

*Academy of Management Review*, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 181-191.

PCN-A-039 (2010). *Tratamiento de la Experiencia Operativa*. Nuclenor.

*Cliens Conexus*. DOI:10.4018/978-1-61350-044-6

Relaciones y Perspectivas. Monografía: Gestión del Conocimiento y TIC. *Novática*,

March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (eds.), Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations,

Technology and the Bottom Line. *MIT Sloan Management Review*, Vol. 41, No. 4,

Workflow Systems: an Evaluation of Alternative Approaches. *International Journal* 

P., Huff, A. S. and Dutton, J. E. (eds.), Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 14,


Edmondson, A. (1996). Learning from Mistakes is Easier Said than Done: Group and

Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R.; Gherardi, S. (1998). Organizational learning: Diverging Communities of Practice?. *Management Learning*, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 259-272. Fiol, C. M. & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational Learning. *Academy of Management Review,*

Gherardi, S. (1999). Learning as Problem-driven or Learning in Face of Mystery?

Gherardi, S. & Nicolini, D. (2000). To Transfer is to Transform: the Circulation of Safety

Goh, S. & Richards, G. (1997). Benchmarking the Learning Capability of Organisations.

González, A. J.; Joaquí, C. Z. & Collazos, C. A. (2009). Karagabi KMmodel: Modelo de

GS-1.10/08 (2008). *Guía de Seguridad nº 1.10. Revisiones Periódicas de la Seguridad de las Centrales Nucleares*. Colección Guías de Seguridad del CSN. Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear. Hedlund, G. (1994). A Model of Knowledge Management and the N-Form Corporation.

Hollingsworth, D. (1995). *The Workflow Reference Model*. Document number WFMC-TC00-

Homsma, G. J.; Van Dyck, C.; De Gilder, D.; Koopman, P.L. & Elfring, T. (2009). Learning

Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational Learning: the Contributing Process and Literatures.

Huysman, M. (1999). Balancing Biases: a Critical Review of the Literature on Organisational

Krogh, G.; Nonaka, I., and Rechsteiner, L. (2011). Leadership in Organizational Knowledge

Kuan W. (2005). Critical Success Factors for Implementing Knowledge Management in

Lai, M.; Lin, Y.; Lin, L.; Wang, W. & Huang, H. (2009). Information Behavior and Value

Leonard, D. (1992). The Factory as a Learning Laboratory. *Sloan Management Review*, Vol. 4,

Learning. *Expert Systems with Applications*, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 542-550. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). *Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation*. Cambridge

from Error: the Influence of Error Incident Characteristics. *Journal of Business* 

Learning. In Easterby-Smith M., Burgoyne J. and Araujo L. *Organisational Learning* 

Creation: A Review and Framework. *Journal of Management Studies*. DOI:

Small and Medium Enterprises. *Industrial Management & Data Systems*, Vol. 105,

Creation Potential of Information Capital: Mediating Role of Organizational

Referencia para la Introducción de Iniciativas de Gestión del Conocimiento en Organizaciones basadas en Conocimiento. *Ingeniare*, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 223-235. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. *Strategic Management* 

*Behav Sci,* Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 5-32.

*Organization Studies*, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 101-24.

Knowledge. *Organisation*, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 329-348.

*Journal*, Vol. 17, Winter Special Issue, pp. 109-122.

*Strategic Management Journal*, Vol. 15, pp. 73-90.

*Organization Science*, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 88-115.

*and the Learning Organisation*, pp. 59-74. Sage, London. Kolb, D. (1984). *Experiential Learning*. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

*Research*, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 115-122.

10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00978.x

University Press. New York.

No. 3, pp.261-279.

No. 1, pp. 23-38.

1003 Issue 1.1. Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC).

*European Management Journal*. Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 575-583.

Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 803-813.

Organizational Influences on the Detection and Correction of Human Error. *J Appl* 


**0**

**8**

Mark Burgess *CTO CFEngine*

*Norway*

**What's Wrong with Knowledge Management?**

Knowledge Management (KM) is undoubtedly the challenge of this decade, and it is destined to shape the way we go about a wide range of fields of human activity for decades to come. Yet, while technologies claiming to enable KM abound, there is little sign that any wide reaching principles have been clearly understood or articulated, or that current research approaches have any positive benefit beyond brute force searching for answers, see Hicks et al. (2006). Nor is there any realistic alternative to the two major approaches to information organization: random search and retrieval (indexing), versus catalogue classification (the

In this essay, I should like to discuss some of the principles of knowledge organization, as I see them, from a perspective that has yielded some success in the related area of configuration or pattern management, see Bergstra & Burgess (1994-now); Burgess (2005). In order to keep things concise and focused, I will concentrate on spelling out a few specific criticisms of current approaches to KM, and then go on to propose adjustments to these approaches that could lead to large improvements in the current state of the art. Finally I'll set some challenges

Knowledge management, or knowledge engineering (KE) today conjours up associations like: database, catalogue, ontology, semantic reasoning, etc. Yet, before information technology (IT) arrived on the scene, thousands of years of human development came up with quite different

Only with the arrival written word, see Wolf (2007), did libraries begin to consider ways of managing large amounts of information, to accumulate knowledge and set about the task of organizing it. Today, however, those who work with knowledge (knowledge engineers, if we may call them that) feel that there is no mileage in these simple matters and are now only concerned with stockpiling and organizing information, then retrieving it, assuming that its simple existence as some form of documentation is enough to guarantee its usefulness.

**1. Introduction**

directory or table of contents).

for future investigation.

• Exploring and Discovering.

• Teaching and apprenticeship.

answers to the problem of passing on knowledge:

**2. Background**

• Storytelling.

**And the Emergence of Ontology**

