Impact of Knowledge Sharing for Elderly Housing Support

Impact of familiarity Sharing for Elderly house streng thereforeerThe Impact of acquaintance Sharing in the Provision of Floating comport in Sheltered accommodate for the elderly.AbstractAs the population ages, increase number of vulnerable older peck atomic number 18 living wholly in produce sign, provide housing or residential c atomic number 18. The hold of the older wad atomic number 18 constantly changing and there is need for long term reliever. Older mint living in supply housing with complex and graduate(prenominal) of necessity require access to operate with a net school of distinguishable types of support high staff showing and supervision. Supported companionship introduced go support to aid batch with high and complex needs. Floating support aimed at preventing homelessness among nation with high difficulties and intensive support, with out-of-hours cover, for people with high needs. Housing services, social services, wellness services tak e a crap to liaise and coordinate the services being provided. Knowledge manduction go out overhaul ease of the tensions and demands among the agencies.This newsprint, which is ground on an on-going PhD project, begins by examining the field of sheltered housing for the elderly, discusses floating support and the expose prayers providing the support. This is followed by analysis of fellowship sh ar and potential factors that are of the essence(predicate) to a succeederful fellowship-share-out in providing floating support to the services provider. This paper concludes that , trust, indigence, impelling communication, overlap mindsets, bring out and egestership are the critical for centreive cognition sharing in provision of floating support in sheltered housing for the elderly. rough-and-ready gathering and sharing friendship and information among supported Housing providers, social services and health and Care agencies by with(predicate) the establishment of the Knowledge sharing initiatives.KeywordsKnowledge sharing, sheltered housing, floating support and Provisions at picture Knowledge is regarded as a strategic resource in organizations, and olibanum the leverage of fellowship is a key managerial issue. Knowledge creation, sharing and dissemination are the main activities in knowledge management. This vignette examines the influence the social and techno system of logical factors much(prenominal) as learning destination and IT use, could squander on knowledge sharing of King Fahd University of Pet divisionum and Minerals (KFUPM) students. A cross-section(a) survey was used as a methodology for data appeal and 137 valid responses were collected from all the three categories of students that include graduates, undergraduates and preparatory students. The require shows that there is a signifi batht positive relationship between the student learning culture and IT use on student knowledge sharing. The plain limitations, practical implications, along with directions for further look into are discussed..Despite the upstanding interests among practiti oners, there is a knowledge gap with regard to online communities of practice. This study examines knowledge sharing among critical-care and advanced-practice nurses, who are engaged in a longstanding online alliance of practice.Lack of knowledge and sharing knowledge with from severally one former(a) was also reflected on ( put back 2 and Appendix). The offseticipants from the specialized unit for wild people verbalize about their lack of knowledge concerning disgusted people in ecumenic and they precious more training. Their practical knowledge gained through long set about was put forward by the supervisor. Lack of resources, principally lack of clipping was a nonher topic for reflection (Table 2 and Appendix). The participants spoke about the spiel with demented pensioners as time-consuming and that they hardly ever had the time they wanted, for representative to sit d proclaim and talk to the pensioners.The descriptions presented during the sessions and derived from practical experience could also support other staff who are dealing with the complexity of caring for demented people. The participants were given the opportunity of sharing their own knowledge with each other through comparing how they handled versatile tasks. Several studies show that staff who are given the opportunity to share their practical knowledge with others gain a wider variety of experience, attitudes, new ways, views and rootages to problems (Bulechek McCloskey 1985, Kadushin 1985). Johns (1995) emphasized that reflective practice of all time needs to be guided and that clinical supervision is central to the process of learning. clinical supervision offers an ideal milieu for the guidance of reflective practice fitting as reflective practice offers an ideal method to structure what takes transport within clinical supervision (John s 1995). The benefits of these reflective tidingss are not the contract of this study. It seems reasonable, however, to assume that such well- useed discussions also second the nurses to achieve high feeling care.(Olsson and Hallberg 1998)Effective knowledge sharing is vital to successful provision of floating support in sheltered housing for the elderly.There is dormant minor knowledge available about home-based master copy care for demented people and how to support it from a managerial point of view. In order to deliver clinical supervision techniques further and to scan the home care staffs specific problems in their caring for demented people living in their own homes, it seems useful to study the content of supervision sessions. The professionals narratives during such sessions may bring in to a deeper understanding of professional home care for the demented.It is estimated that the best solution for elderly demented people is to stay at home, since their known pu rlieu can better support the maintenance of their ad hominem lives and determine. Staying at home supposedly gives demented people an opportunity to maintain ADL-performance, and promotes the individuals sense of self-importance and integrity (Zgola 1988, Kihlgren 1990). Studies from Canada and the USA show that demented people remain in their homes during the major part of the disease (Alessi 1991, Gallo et al. 1991). It may well be that the share are the same in Sweden. No studies, however, eat been located. Usually demented people who stay at home are cared for by their own families (Dellasega 1991) and this is known to cause strain on the family phencyclidine hydrochloride (Given et al. 1990, Pushkar Gold et al. 1995). The family caregiver also seems to benefit from increased satisfaction and self-esteem related to taking on and carrying through the responsibility for their demented family member and they do not necessarily worry about their demented near of kin, as they play to do if the demented be follows institutionalized (cf Stephens et al. 1991). On the other hand the family caregiver may suffer from social and affective limitations in his/her life peculiarly at the beginning of the next of kins disease (Grafstrom et al. 1992) and Saveman et al. (1993) show that there is a risk of abuse of elderly people in informal care. theme care staff may have the opportunity to relieve such strain.(Olsson and Hallberg 1998)(Olsson and Hallberg 1998)Research on outcomes in supported housing has been very restrict and close to published studies are descriptive, rather than evaluative. Cost- utileness has generally not been investigated. The outcomes virtually habitually evaluated are satisfaction and property of life.A recent GOSW research review has concluded that There are few beneficial effect of supported housing, exceptionally in relation to quality of life that could lead to alter health There is a lack of research into health related outc omes, such as re-admission rates or clinical symptoms The object lens of promoting independence, as stated in the South West Regional Housing Strategy, should be assessed formally There is a need for formal valuation of supported housing schemes to en certain that the projects meet the needs of the clients and the wider population.ABSTRACTIn the landing field of knowledge management, legion(predicate) studies have been devoted to investigating how to design an strong knowledge-sharing clay in organizations. These studies emphasized the importance of various aspects to the success of the knowledge-sharing system and provided us with hints concerning what critical factors we should consider in the design of a knowledge-sharing system for convention learning. In this study, we aim at exploring the critical components of a successful knowledge-sharing system and in argential aspects we should consider in the design of a system for ships go with learning. To achieve this task, we conducted an experiment during a semester-long course. The participants in the experiment were the final-year undergraduate students of a worry school in Hong Kong. Finally, several factors furcateic to the success of a knowledge-sharing system were identified. Implications for teaching and learning were also provided.KeywordsKnowledge sharing, group learning, critical success factorINTRODUCTIONKnowledge sharing among students is believed to be an effective coming to facilitate studying and improve their pedantic performance. Therefore, how we should carry out successful knowledge sharing in the classroom is a meaningful topic and should be given some attention. To number a knowledge-sharing system is an approach worthy of effort in conducting effective knowledge sharing in school. However, which system aspects merit consideration is still a problem under investigation. Based on previous research, the present study explores potential factors that are important to a successf ul knowledge-sharing system and discusses some implications for academic teaching and learning.LITERATURE REVIEWIn the theatre of operations of knowledge management, many studies have been done to investigate how to establish an groovy system for sharing knowledge in organizations. These studies emphasized the importance of various aspects to the success of knowledge sharing system. For example, Almeida et als study (2002) emphasized the accessibility of ten-fold mechanisms, formal and informal, to share and transfer knowledge so as to flexibly and simultaneously move, integrate and develop expert knowledge. Besides, the organizational culture that is capable of supporting the flow of knowledge was also addressed as an important factor. Another study by Nelson and Cooprider (1996) empirically tested the relationships between IS performance and joint trust and influence among IS groups and their line customers. They found that mutual trust can facilitate knowledge sharing and can then increase shared knowledge. Bryants paper (2003) mainly studied the role of leading in organizational knowledge management by comparing the effect of transformational leadershiphip and transactional leadership on knowledge sharing. The involvement of high engineering science in knowledge sharing is addressed by Hubers study (2001) that claimed that some of the barriers to knowledge sharing can to a certain extent be raised by utilizing appropriate technologies.A few studies noted the role of motivation in knowledge sharing. Most of them discussed the different effects of two extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on knowledge sharing. It was believed that extrinsic motivation is a short-term approach and cannot create a lasting dedication to sharing knowledge (Kohn, 1993). Moreover, extrinsic motivation is also inappropriate if the knowledge shared is mainly tacit in nature (Osterloh et al., 2000). In Hansens paper (2002), the results showed that project teams who could c onveniently access related knowledge from other units by virtue of pre-existent relationships could complete their projects faster than those who failed to do so. Thus, pre-existing relationships are also a facilitating factor due to their shortening the path among units who have got related knowledge. Lastly, a communal language is also believed essential for effective knowledge sharing so that knowledge producers and recipients can achieve fluent and accurate communication in exchanging ideas and knowledge (Ali, 2001).EXPERIMENTAL SETUPFor this study, we think an experiment that was conducted during a course and lasted for intact semester. The participants in the experiment were the final-year undergraduate students of a business school. For the purposes of this experiment, we separated all students into different groups with each group consisting of five to six students. We then assigned relevant project topics to different groups and asked them to finish the projects by the end of semester. At the beginning, we counseled the participants that sharing knowledge is an effective way of improving performance and encouraged them to share their knowledge with their group mates as much as possible during the projects.MEASUREMENTA questionnaire was designed to test the participants perceptions concerning knowledge sharing based on their experience acquired in the group projects. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. In the front part, we selected eight factors based on past studies, including knowledge-friendly culture, motivational practices, multiple available channels, leader supportiveness, trust, pre-existing relationship, common language and aim of technology. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which each of these factors is important to the success of knowledge sharing. The second part had four items Email, Knowledge repository, face-to-face (F2F) meeting and Formal seminar. We ask participants to indicate the frequency with whic h they used each of the above methods to share knowledge with their group mates. We distributed the questionnaire to 91 students in a course and finally obtained 75 usable samples for further data analysis.RESULTSThe mean, guck and min values for each of the eight variables in the first part are summarized in Table 1. In addition, we conducted a series of diametric t-tests to statistically compare every possible pair of means. Based on the results of the t-test (Table 2), we categorized the eight factors into five different groups knowledge-friendly culture and motivational practices, multiple available channels and leader supportiveness, trust, pre-existing relationship and common language, and, lastly, level of technology.Trust culture motif Channels Leader Relation lyric poem Tech squiffy 6.04 5.84 5.76 5.52 5.51 5.12 5.27 4.71MAX 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7MIN 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 1 splendour MAX MINTable 1. Results of the first partCulture 2.15Motivation 2.71 0.92Channels 4.36 2.66 2.31Leade r 5.18 3.42 2.32 0.12Relation 6.54 6.11 5.16 2.95 3.04Language 6.31 4.22 3.66 1.98 1.96 0.95Tech 9.28 8.41 6.83 5.03 5.73 2.70 3.50t-value Trust Culture Motivation Channels Leader Relation Language Table 2. Results of paired t-test ( p In each above group that contains more than one factor, the factors are not statistically different from each other. For example, the knowledge-friendly-culture factor is perceive as equally important as the factor on motivational practice. We then prioritized these five groups in terms of their importance to the success of knowledge sharing by comparing their mean level. Obviously, building trust is the to the highest degree important factor and the level of technology the least, as shown in Table 1.The mean, max and min values of the second part of the dataset are exhibited in Table 3. We also worked out the percentage of responses that rated the item more than 4 points. By referring to this percentage and checking the corresponding mean values, we can obtain information concerning how many of participants at least a great deal used each method to share their knowledge with others. To conclude, F2F meeting is the most ofttimes used approach to sharing knowledge. Formal seminars, on the contrary, were the least used.F2F Email Repository SeminarMEAN 5.83 5.41 4.48 3.00MAX 7 7 7 7MIN 4 2 2 1Frequent Usage 94.7% 85.3% 46.7% 21.3%Table 3. information of the second partIMPLICATIONSOur study has essential implications for course teaching and learning. Our study suggests that in order to facilitate knowledge sharing among students, building swear relationships is the first and most important step to take. Such trust can be built and strengthened via gradual mutual understanding. Therefore, there should be various opportunities and occasions for students to invite to know each other. In this way, improved trust due to good understanding can raise the psychological barriers to communication and can then increase the students will ingness to share knowledge. Moreover, a healthful culture should be fostered among students that learning from others and sharing what you know with others is the right matter to do and an effective way of improving study. In this arena, instructors play a particularly critical role. As for the sharing activity itself, increasing synergetic communication between students is still an ideal way of proceeding. Whether in class or after class, students should be provided with adequate opportunities for face-to-face discussions without the presence of instructors so that they can actively share knowledge during these discussions. Frequent formal seminars are not an effective approach for sharing knowledge because they hardly legislate with each other to exchange opinions and thoughts during the seminars.REFERENCESAli, Y. (2001). The intranet and the management of fashioning and using skills. journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 338-348.Almeida, P., Song, J. and Grant, R. M. (2002). A re firms superior to alliances and markets? An empirical test of cross-border knowledge building. shaping Science, 13, 147-161.Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of leaders government activityal Studies, 9, 32-44.Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13, 232-248.Huber, G. P. (2001). Transfer of knowledge in knowledge management systems unexplored issues and suggested studies. European Journal of Information Systems, 10, 72-79.Kohn, A. (1993). Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, 71,54-63.Nelson, K. M. and J. G. Cooprider (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20, 409-432.Osterloh, M. and Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11, 538-550.Knowing in bioti c community10 Critical Success Factors in Building Communities of employThe Limits of Knowledge ManagementMany companies are discovering that the satisfying gold in knowledge management is not in distributing documents or combining databases. In the last few years many companies have used the network and other new information technology to link professionals across the human race to share documents or compare data. barely many are discovering that the real value in knowledge management is in sharing ideas and insights that are not documented and hard to articulate. This undocumented, hard-to-articulate knowledge is what has been called tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1958). A group of systems designers for a computer company tried to share their knowledge by storing their documentation for client systems in a common database. They in brief discovered that they did not need each others documentation. They needful to understand the logic other system designers used why that softwar e, with that hardware and that type of service plan. They needed to understand the thinking of the other system designers. A petrophysicist laborious to interpret unusual data from a deep sea vegetable oil well needed help from a colleague who had seen similar anomalies and could help him think through how to interpret it. Only in the course of the discussion were they able to understand the anomaly. A geologist faced with an array of new seismic tools needed to know which would be most useful in his particular application. A product development team at an auto company found through their internet that another development team had demonstrable and rejected a design ideas similar to one they were considering. They needed to understand the reasons for the rejection and get feedback from the other team on the approach they were considering. A gross sales manager working with a particularly difficult client needed to know how sales managers for other product lines had dealt with tha t client. In all these cases people needed tacit knowledge knowledge that was not documented, that their peers had never antecedently articulated, and that needed to be thought about to be shared (McDermott, 1999a). utilize typical knowledge management methods to leverage tacit knowledge muchtimes results in information junkyards and empty libraries. At the sum of money of most knowledge management efforts is an attempt to document and share information, ideas and insights so they can be organized, managed and shared. But documenting tacit knowledge frequently does more harm than good. When a major computer company first introduced its knowledge site, it asked field engineers to dictate their shoot downs in a common database. But, care many other companies, this company soon discovered that their staff did not want to hunt through many, redundant entries. As one engineer said, My own file locker is bad enough, why would I want look through everyone elses file cabinet. Rather than a resource, the company had created an information junkyard, full of potentially good material that was too much trouble to sort through. The field engineers wanted someone familiar with their discipline to assess the material, decide what is important and to ameliorate the documents in the database by summarizing, combining, contrasting, and integrating them. This would make the junkyard useful. Another company instructed their professional staff to document key work processes so others could easily learn from them. Most staff felt their work was too varied to witch in a set of procedures, but eventually they completed the task. within a year the database was populated, but little used, an empty library. Most people found the information to be too general to be useful. The help they needed was still in the experience the tacit knowledge of their peers.Communities of radiation pattern Leverage ThinkingIronically one of the oldest elements of organization is key to supple ment tacit knowledge, communities of practice. Communities of practice are groups of people who share information, insight, experience, and tools about an area of common interest (Wenger, 1998). A communitys tenseness could be on a professional discipline like reservoir engineering or biology a skill like machine repair or a topic like a technology, an industry, or a segment of a production process. In a manufacturing company, for example, communities were organize well-nigh steps in the production process. Shell Oil Co.s New siege of Orleans operation, which is organized into cross-functional teams, formed them rough key disciplines and topics that cross individual teams. Communities of practice have always been part of the informal structure of organizations. They form spontaneously as people seek help, try to solve problems, develop new ideas and approaches. Some utter that spontaneous communities of practice have always been the real vehicle through which skillful kno wledge spreads through organizations. Spontaneous communities of practice are informal. peck participate in them as their interest, time and energy dictates. Although they usually gel around a particular topic or domain, the specific issues they focus on change over time, as the needs and interests of their members change.Communities are held unitedly by passionate interest and value. Communities of practice frequently form around topics community members have invested many years in ontogenesis topics they are much passionately interested in, a science, a craft or a manufacturing process. But communities of practice are not rightful(prenominal) celebrations of common interest. They focus on practical aspects of a practice, everyday problems, new tools, developments in the field, things that work and dont. So people participate because the community provides value. Community members frequently turn to each other to help solve technical problems, like interpreting anomalous data. Because they are lots linked, not only to each other but also to suppliers, universities and others outside their organization communities of practice, they much accommodate members informed of new developments in the field. Because community members share a common technical interest, they can share ideas and concerns with others who really understand. And praise from community members is often the most meaningful because technical peers really understand the difficulty of the work or the brilliance of an analysis. As a result, people often have a great deal of their professional identity tied up in their communities.Communities of practice link people in many ways. Communities frequently link people with a common interest who do not have regular day-to-day contact. For example, in Shell Oils New Orleans operation, communities link people who work on different teams. In this parallel knit organization (McDermott, 1999b) teams are the onus organizational structure. Communities form around technical disciplines and topics that draw people from many teams. Each community operates in its own way, but the Turbodudes community is fairly typical. The Turbodudes draw people from different disciplines (geology, geophysics, petrophysics, reservoir engineering) who are interested in a particular mannikin of geological structure common in the Gulf of Mexico, turbidites. The Turbodudes stay unneurotic through five key components a coordinator, mentors, a weekly meeting, presentations by outside vendors, and a website that stores topics discussed at previous meetings. For the last two years the Turbodudes have met every Tuesday at 730 in the morning, onward the other organizational meetings begin. Typically twenty to forty people come to the meetings. While there are often many new faces at the meetings, there is a shopping centre group of ten high-contributors who make most of the meetings. The meetings seem very informal. The coordinator asks who has a question or problem. After a short presentation, others offer their observations, describing the logic or assumptions they made in formulating those observations. A technical specialist takes notes on her computer. The following day meeting notes are posted on the communitys website. While the meeting only lasts an hour, people often leave in small groups hotly engaged in discussions of the meetings topic. But these meetings are not as informal as they seem. Between meetings the coordinator walks the halls connecting people with others who share similar concerns, following up on the meetings topics, and finding topics for the next meeting. To keep discussions focused on carving edge topics and to keep major(postnominal) community leaders engaged, the community developed a mentorship program for people new to the field. The mentorship program provides an avenue for basic questions and distributes the job of educating new community members in an equitably.Communities thrive on trust. One of the main dynamics of the Turbodudes and many other communities of practice is that members ask for and offer help solving technical problems. Regularly helping each other makes it easier for community members to show their half-hearted spots and learn together in the public space of the community. Having stamp and supportive discussions of real problems frequently builds a greater sense of linkup and trust between community members. As they share ideas and experiences, community members often develop a shared way of doing things, a set of common practices, and a greater sense of common purpose. Sometimes they formalize these in guidelines and standards, but often they simply remain what everybody knows about good practice. In the course of helping each other, sharing ideas, and collectively solving problems, everybody often becomes a trusted group of peers.Communities of practice are ideal vehicles for leverage tacit knowledge because they enable person-to-person interaction and engage a whole group in advancing their field of practice. As a result, they can spread the insight from that collaborative thinking across the whole organizationCritical Success Factors for Community BuildingCommunities of practice are a new/old kind of organizational form. Even though communities of practice have been part of organizations for many generations, we have only latterly begun to understand their dynamics and tried to intentionally develop them. Because they are organic, impelled by the value they provide to members, organized around changing topics, and leaping by peoples sense of connection, they are very different from teams and other organizational forms most of us are familiar with (McDermott, 1999b Wenger Snyder, 2000). The challenges they pose and the factors in making them successful are also different.There are four key challenges in starting and supporting communities capable of sharing tacit knowledge and thinking together. The management challenge is to communicate that the organization truly values sharing knowledge. The community challenge is to create real value for community members and insure that the community shares cutting edge thinking, rather than sophisticated copying. The technical challenge is to design human and information systems that not only make information available but help community members think together. And the personal challenge is to be open to the ideas of others and maintain a thirst for developing the communitys practice.Ten factors, dealing with each of these challenges, are critical to the success of communities of practice. Without them, communities take to the woods to flounder or fail.Critical Success Factors in Building Community Management Challenge1. Focus on topics important to the business and community members.2. Find a well-respected community member to coordinate the community.3. Make sure people have time and encouragement to participate.4. Build on the core values of the organization.C ommunity Challenge5. Get key thought leaders involved.6. Build personal relationships among community members.7. Develop an active passionate core group.8. Create forums for thinking together as well as systems for sharing information.Technical Challenge9. Make it easy to contribute and access the communitys knowledge and practices.Personal Challenge10. Create real dialogue about cutting edge issues.The Management ChallengeKnowledge management, like total quality and reengineering has become the latest of management fads. Many professionals have found that if they just keep their heads low they can escape the extra work and allude of these fads. With so many pressures drawing on their time, it is often hard to get the attention of professional staff. Four factors can communicate that management really does support knowledge-sharing communities.1. Focus on knowledge important to both the business and the people.To show that communities of practice are important, form them around top ics at the heart of the business, where leveraging knowledge will have a significant pecuniary or competitive impact. Communities of practice at Shell, a very technically oriented company, started around technical topics. At a manufacturing company, we formed the first communities around major steps of the manufacturing process