THE ENTERPRISE KNOWLEDGE PORTAL REVISITED
by Joseph M. Firestone, Ph.D.
Enter the Enterprise Knowledge Portal
About one year ago (on March 20) I introduced the concept "Enterprise
Knowledge Portal" (in "Enterprise Information Portals and Enterprise
Knowledge Portals," [1]) to the IT world by defining it and distinguishing it
from the Enterprise Information Portal (EIP). The term had been used earlier
(on March 5) by Hummingbird Communications, in a press release [2] announcing
their impending acquisition of the PC DOCS group, and in an article in DataPro
Industry News by Karen Shegda and Allan Tiedrich [3] entitled "Knowledge
Management = Access + Collaboration + Retrieval + Analysis." But they
declined to define or characterize the EKP except to say that it would
integrate structured and unstructured content, and provide a single point of
access to all relevant enterprise information. On March 25, IDC published its
"Sourcebook for Knowledge Superconductivity" [4]. In this report Gerry Murray,
then IDC's Director of Knowledge Management Technologies (currently,
IntegrationWare's vice president of Business Strategy and Development)
distinguishes four types of corporate portals, including EKPs and offers some
definitions (which I have discussed previously in ("Defining Enterprise
Information Portals," [5]).
The introduction of the EKP concept was followed by remarkably little
activity on EKPs. Google searches on "Enterprise Information Portal" (1015
hits), "Enterprise Information Portals" (943 hits), "Enterprise Knowledge
Portal" (56 hits) and "Enterprise Knowledge Portals," (66 hits) tell the story
of EKP vs. EIP during 1999 and the first two months of 2000. Other than urls
reflecting writings by Gerry Murray or myself, and third party links to what
we've done, there are few evidences of EKP activity on the Web, and only six
vendors that bill themselves as having EKP products. Hummingbird promised an
EKP in March 1999, but by.2 this March had released an EIP instead. During its
first year, the EKP space gave every evidence of being swallowed up by its EIP
parent.
Enter DM Review and Jeff Grammer
In view of the apparent slow growth of interest in EKPs, the appearance of
Jeff Garmmer's article ("The Enterprise Knowledge Portal," in the March 2000
issue of DM Review [6] was a pleasant and welcome surprise. Grammer is
co-founder
and Chief Technical Officer of IntegrationWare, one of the few selfidentified
EKP vendors. He brings to his writing on EKPs an appreciation that
they are closely connected to formal Knowledge Management (KM) efforts in the
enterprise, and that they both enable KM and are dependent on it for success
in implementing them. While I appreciate and agree with many aspects of
Grammer's analysis of the EKP and certainly agree strongly with him on the KM
connection, I believe his analysis is both less than comprehensive and ignores
many of the critical distinguishing characteristics of the EKP. I will develop
my own point of view on EKP's through an extensive commentary on Grammer's
analysis.
"The EIP Deals Only With Information"
In EIPs users must "still infer any process and knowledge from the
information." (P. 20)
I agree that this is a major distinction between EIPs and EKPs. EIPs provide
facilities for producing, integrating, and managing data, and information,
but not knowledge. If they supported producing, integrating, and managing
knowledge they would be EKPs.
Tacit Knowledge
"Most corporate knowledge sits inside the heads of employees digesting the
vast amounts of information. While information is captured, knowledge is not;
and pieces of it leave at the end of every employee's tenure." (P.20)
I don't agree with the view that corporate knowledge sits inside the heads
of employees. Individual-level knowledge is stored in the heads of employees.
Such knowledge (the product of individual learning whether or not it occurs in
the corporate context) is only a particular type of information from an
organizational or corporate viewpoint. To become organizational knowledge it
must be validated organizationally and in the validation process become
visible to the organization. EIPs support capturing tacit individual-level
knowledge through their support of collaborative interactions, but they don't
support producing it through a portal-enabled knowledge production process.
That is a role reserved for EKPs.
Core EKP Definition.3
The core of Grammer's view of the Enterprise Knowledge Portal is (P. 21-22):
"The enterprise knowledge portal (EKP) is an evolution of the portal that is
influenced by the goals of KM. It combines EIP aspects while also capturing
tacit knowledge, integrating access to expertise and embedding application
functionality. The EKP not only provides the means for information access, but
lets users interact to link information with their collective insight, value
and experiences. EKPs enable people to make optimal decisions as EKPs combine
acquired knowledge and information, and serve as a "self-documenting" center
of experiential learning."
I agree with the first and last sentence of this statement. EKPs are
influenced by the goals of KM, because a distinguishing characteristic of
EKPs, in my view, is that one of their important goals is to provide support
for specific KM functions such as: leadership, building external KM relevant
relationships, KM-specific knowledge production, KM-specific knowledge
integration, crisis handling, changing knowledge processing rules, allocating
resources for KM and knowledge processing, and negotiating agreements with
representatives of other business processes.
The last sentence expresses the idea that optimal decisions are specifically
connected to the use of knowledge, i.e. valid information. And the
implication is that decisions made on the basis of unvalidated or invalidated
information will be less than optimal. To me this is the heart of the
justification of the EKP and of why one needs to go beyond the EIP. The EIP
does not support knowledge production and integration, but only information
acquisition, production, and integration, so it does not explicitly support
optimal decisions.
Moving to the middle sentences, here I find problems. The second sentence
implies that "capturing tacit knowledge, integrating access to expertise and
embedding application functionality" are features that distinguish EIPs and
EKPs. But, if one means by an EIP, the definition of it first offered in the
Merrill Lynch (ML) report, this implication is not justified. The ML report
certainly recognizes that collaborative applications having these
characteristics are part of the EIP universe, and there is nothing in the idea
of knowledge itself to suggest that these characteristics distinguish EKPs
from EIPs.
Furthermore, it is not the case that EKPs alone let "users interact to link
information with their collective insight, value and experiences."
Collaborative EIPs do this, as well.
Apart from these specific problems, I don't think this core definition makes
the critical distinctions between EIPs and EKP's sharply enough. Obviously,
EKPs are distinguished from EIPs by their focus on knowledge and knowledge.4
management. But to sharpen the distinction we need to know more about what
that means, and that is where Jeff Grammer's view on EKPs is less than
comprehensive. The best way to explain my alternative view is to present my
own core EKP definition and then specify it. An EKP is an enhanced Enterprise
Information Portal (EIP). It is an EIP that:
- is goal directed toward knowledge production, knowledge integration,
and
knowledge management, and also
- focuses upon, provides, produces and manages information about the
validity
of the information it supplies,
- provides information about your business and meta-information about the
degree to which you can rely on that information,
- distinguishes knowledge from mere information,
- provides a facility for producing knowledge from information
- orients one toward producing and integrating knowledge rather than
information
AN EKP is an EIP
An EKP shares the characteristics of other EIPs. It is a particularly
comprehensive version of an EIP however, incorporating a personalized
browser-based
interface, structured data management, unstructured content management,
and collaborative, as well as knowledge production, knowledge integration, and
knowledge management functionality. It also requires an integrative
architecture incorporating knowledge claim objects encapsulating knowledge
claim data, metadata describing the validity characteristics of these
knowledge
claim objects, and methods producing behavior of the objects.
Knowledge Processing Means Knowledge Production and Knowledge Integration
I view knowledge processing as encompassing knowledge production and
knowledge integration processes composed of the following sub-processes:
- Knowledge production;
- individual and group learning;
- information acquisition (getting information from outside the
enterprise);
- knowledge claim formulation;
- knowledge claim validation;
- Knowledge integration;
- Broadcasting;
- Searching/retrieving;
- Teaching;
- Knowledge and information sharing..5
A more detailed description of these sub-processes is in "The Metaprise, The
AKMS, and The Enterprise Knowledge Portal," [7], and in Mark McElroy's "The
Second Generation of KM," [8].
The Knowledge Management Process
Knowledge Management is human activity that is part of the interaction
constituting the Knowledge Management Process (KMP) of an agent or collective.
(See "The Metaprise . . ." [7]) This definition reduces KM to the definition
of KMP. The KMP is an ongoing, persistent, purposeful interaction among
human-based
agents through which the participating agents aim at managing (handling,
directing, governing, controlling, coordinating, planning, organizing) other
agents, components, and activities participating in the basic knowledge
processes (knowledge production and knowledge integration) into a planned,
directed, unified whole, producing, maintaining, enhancing, acquiring, and
transmitting the enterprise's knowledge base. In other words, KM is about
managing knowledge processes, it is not about executing knowledge processes.
There are three categories of KM activities in the KMP:
- Interpersonal Behavior-focused KM activities (Leadership -- hiring,
training, motivating, monitoring, evaluating, etc. Building relationships
with individuals and organizations external to the enterprise);
- Knowledge and Information processing KM activities (KM knowledge
production, KM knowledge integration,); and
- Decision Making KM activities (Changing knowledge process rules at
lower KM
and knowledge process levels, crisis handling, allocating knowledge and KM
resources, negotiating agreements with representatives of other business
processes)
See "The Metaprise . . ." [7] for a more detailed treatment of these
activities.
Provides, Produces, and Manages Information About The Validity of
Information It Supplies
Knowledge is validated information. EKPs distinguish knowledge from mere
information by providing information about the results of tests of the
validity of any piece of information. That means that EKPs must track and
store such meta-information while EIPs in general need not. This requirement
is one that distinguishes EKPs from other EIPs and it is a requirement that
greatly expands the diversity and volume of metadata found in EKPs as compared
with EIPs.
Provides Business Information Along with Meta-information About the Degree
To Which You Can Rely On It.6
Validity information about a knowledge claim is meta-information about that
claim. This validity base includes meta-information comparing the knowledge
claim against competing knowledge claims. This meta-information tells you the
degree to which you can rely on the target knowledge claim compared to its
competitors. It tells you the relative strength of the knowledge claim
compared to its competitors. Thus, EKPs record the history of the competitive
struggle among ideas (knowledge claims) within the enterprise. EIPs need
record no such history.
Distinguishes Knowledge From Information
By providing validity information (meta-information) about knowledge claims,
EKPs provide information on the relative strength of knowledge claims. The
stronger the claim, the closer it approaches organizational knowledge and the
stronger the support it provides for decisions. The weaker the claim, the
more closely it approaches false organizational information and the weaker the
support it provides for decisions.
Provides a Facility for Producing Knowledge From Information
By providing services for knowledge claim formulation and validation and
tracking and storing the results of validation activities in knowledge claim
objects, EKPs provide a facility that supports producing knowledge from
knowledge claims (or, if you like, supports producing better or worse
validated knowledge claims from unvalidated ones). Since knowledge claims are
information and knowledge is validated knowledge claims, it follows that EKPs
provide a facility for producing knowledge from information.
Orients One toward Producing and Integrating Knowledge Rather than Only
Information
Because the EKP supports the full set of knowledge life cycle activities
including, and most critically, individual and group learning and knowledge
validation, it orients one toward knowledge production. Because new knowledge
results from use of the EKP, enterprise information integration processes will
be oriented toward integrating knowledge and validity information as well as
business information.
The Keys to Distinguishing The EKP are Knowledge Production, Knowledge
Integration, Knowledge Management, and Validity
Among these, Grammer's core definition emphasizes only Knowledge Management
and particularly neglects the role of knowledge claim validation in the EKP.
In addition, it provides little emphasis on knowledge production as a whole,
the object of "demand-side" KM. ("The Second Generation of KM," [8]).7
EKP Value
"The EKP is the first pragmatic KM application. Giving users one-stop
interaction with appropriate intellectual capital, applications and
expertise, the EKP speeds innovation and reduces the amount of rework in an
organization." (P. 22)
I agree with the idea that the EKP accelerates innovation, but I don't think
the main point is that it does so through the above "one stop interaction."
EIPs also provide, or can provide, such interaction. Instead, the reason is
that the EKP provides systematic support for knowledge production and
knowledge integration sub-processes, while the EIP does not. Through this
support the EKP can reduce cycle time in each of the sub-processes including
individual and group learning and knowledge claim validation, and therefore
reduce cycle time (accelerate innovation) throughout the knowledge life cycle.
In contrast, EIPs cannot support individual and group learning and knowledge
claim validation, and therefore their potential for accelerating innovation is
limited.
The value of the EKP goes beyond accelerating innovation. Some other benefits
are:
- Competitive Advantage;
- Increased ROI;
- Increased Employee Productivity;
- Increased Effectiveness;
- Decreased Cost of Information;
- Increased Collaboration;
- Universal Access to Enterprise Resources; and
- A Unified, Dynamically Integrated and Maintained, knowledge-optimized
and
Common View of Enterprise Applications, Data, Information and Knowledge
The first seven of these benefits are also claimed for EIPs. ("Benefits of
Enterprise Information Portals and Corporate Goals," [9]) But benefits 1, 2,
and 4 assume the use of valid information in decision making, so they are
clearly benefits that, along with accelerated innovation, distinguish EKPs
from EIPs.
Converging Computing Capabilities, EKPs, and An EKP Framework
Grammer thinks that the EKP "pulls together" a number of converging
computing capabilities including expert systems and AI, business intelligence,
collaborative computing, Enterprise Application Integration (EAI), and
computer-based training. His emphasis on EAI as an important aspect of portal
systems is particularly significant, because thus far it has been mentioned
less frequently.8 than some other portal capabilities. And I generally agree
that EKPs pull together the other four capabilities also. But this list is
incomplete, and in addition his treatment of some of these capabilities misses
some critical points.
On incompleteness, it is hard to see why Content Management, Data
Management, and Data Warehousing (including Data Marting) are not also
included in this list. The ML report named them (along with BI) as key areas
converging toward the EIP. And there is no reason why they are not equally
relevant to the EKP. Further, the capabilities represented by Object-oriented
based technology and architecture and XML may be special keys to an EKP
framework, but they are also two additional converging capability areas and
may as well be identified as such. That gives us ten areas of converging
capability.
Moving to the issue of critical points missed, the first point to recognize
is that EIPs, as well as EKPs, can also pull together all ten of the
converging computing capabilities listed. EIPs can use agents, expert
system-based
inference, business intelligence, collaborative computing, EAI, and
training. They can also integrate data warehousing, content management, data
management, O-O based architecture, and XML. The integration of all these
capabilities does not make or distinguish an EKP, as I have shown in a recent
full-length industry report. ("Approaching Enterprise Information Portals,"
[10]) So, what is distinctive, about the convergence of these capabilities in
EKPs?
Expert Systems and AI
The two points made by Grammer are that expert systems assist the knowledge
worker in deriving value from the EKP, and that expert systems and AI are a
starting point for delivering agent-based capabilities that use the knowledge
of the EKP. What is meant by "deriving value from the EKP" in this context is
not specified, and the idea that expert systems and AI help us deliver the
product (i.e. knowledge) of the EKP does nothing to distinguish their role in
the EKP from their role in the EIP, where they are a starting point for
delivering agent-based capabilities that use the information of the EIP. So
what is the distinctive role of expert systems and/or AI in the EKP? It is to
provide the basis for automated knowledge production and integration within
the enterprise through intelligent servers and agents capable of learning in
response to their interactions and changes in their environment.
These servers and agents constitute an adaptive system in which knowledge
claims formulated at various levels of the EKP systems architecture can
interact in a collaborative learning process influenced by group and
organizational level validation rules. The learning process is one in which
local knowledge claims aggregated by client-based avatar agents, and
application server-based agents are submitted to a distributed Artificial
Knowledge Server (AKS) for adjudication and evaluation resulting in negative
or
positive reinforcement of knowledge claims..9
Business Intelligence
BI querying and OLAP capabilities are not distinguishing features of EKPs,
because they don't incorporate capabilities for validating generalizations or
models suggested by the results of such BI analysis. Formal knowledge
production capabilities such as statistical analysis, non-linear modeling,
model free estimation techniques, simulation, etc. distinguish EKPs provided
they incorporate some model assessment capabilities. It is these capabilities
that partially support the knowledge validation process that is at the core of
the EKP/EIP distinction.
Jeff Grammer states that BI (EIS/DSS) analyses "are given context by the EKP
to compare data analysis with other unstructured information to provide both a
quantitative and a qualitative picture." I certainly agree. But this doesn't
represent a BI capability that distinguishes EKPs from EIPs. Instead, it is an
EKP capability that contributes value-added to BI.
Content Management and XML
Content Analysis is the transformation of unstructured content into data,
information, or knowledge by describing it in terms of attributes of media
objects, attribute structures, and rules relating attributes. Content
Management is the process of organizing, directing, and integrating content
analysis and distribution efforts aimed at producing or distributing data,
information, or knowledge.
Content Management Systems acquire, process, filter, analyze, and distribute
previously "unstructured" internal and external media objects contained in
diverse paper and electronic formats. They also archive and often restructure
these media objects so they can more easily be retrieved and manipulated. And
they store the resulting data, information, or knowledge in a corporate
repository (either centralized or distributed).
Content markup and metadata capabilities based on XML tagging creates the
possibility of content analysis and later access to arbitrary "chunks" of
document content which may be treated as persistent XML-based objects. This
capability alone doesn't distinguish EKPs from EIPs. But if the objects are
knowledge claim objects encapsulating meta-information about validity and
methods for manipulating such information, then an important distinction
between EKPs and EIPs is specified.
Regarding Jeff Grammer's idea that "XML becomes an open method of actually
passing objects in and out of EKP sources," I think it is perhaps more
appropriate to point out that XML data in EKP sources provides a particularly
convenient form of persisting object data and metadata, and passing such data
in and out of distributed EKP components..10
Data Warehousing and Data Management
Though these capabilities are essential for managing and providing access to
structured data in both EIPs and EKPs, and so represent converging
capabiliies essential for the EKP, they do not distinguish the EKP from the
EIP.
Collaboration Applications
Collaboration applications are important for both EIPs and EKPs. And for
both collaboration applications provide a computing framework for information
or knowledge sharing, as the case may be. But collaboration applications can
provide a capability distinguishing the EKP from the EIP where they provide a
framework for collaborative knowledge production; for the systematic offering
of knowledge claims, counter-claims, and supporting arguments in collaborative
processes of group learning, knowledge claim formulation, and knowledge
validation. Jeff Grammer is correct that collaboration provides an environment
in the EKP for eliciting tacit (individual-level) knowledge. But the way it
does that is by involving individuals in the processes of group and
organizational learning.
Computer-Based Training
Continuous CBT can be provided by both EIPs and EKPs. In order to produce
the continuous learning Grammer mentions, the CBT program must support an
individual's knowledge validation process, rather than merely sharing
information. It is the provision of a continuous CBT program having this
capability that distinguishes the EKP from the EIP.
O-O-based Technology and Architecture According to Grammmer, O-O technology
and architecture in the portal system provides an ability to "wrap" all
applications and resources of the enterprise into a single distributed, but
non-monolithic system. This integrative capability is essential to avoid
fragmentation into portal "smokestacks." It also provides an economical way to
incorporate both content and rules into the autonomous components of a model
representing both source content and relationships. Lastly, it provides the
ability to interact with the portal front end to create new objects and
patterns of objects in the object model.
While this is correct and important, it doesn't make clear the specific
aspects of an O-O architecture that would distinguish the EKP from an EIP. In
any EIP, O-O technology and architecture provide integration, a unified view
of the portal system, encapsulation of content and rules in objects, and the
ability to extend the object model. But in an EKP, the object model includes
knowledge claim objects, not just business objects. And its object model also
includes validation.11 rules, encapsulated in some of the knowledge claim
objects, used by the portal and knowledge workers to evaluate other knowledge
claim objects. A more comprehensive treatment of both EIP and EKP architecture
can be found in "Approaching Enterprise Information Portals," [10].
EAI
"Enterprise application integration (EAI) techniques are required for the
EKP to effectively integrate information from multiple types of structured and
unstructured sources. Unlike traditional EAI products which deliver
inter-application
communication, the EKP focuses on integrating the human view of
different applications." (P. 22)
A good point, but not complete, and not exclusive to EKPs. EIP's employing
EAI can provide comprehensive integration of human views, processes, work
flows, and data, and content. In EKPs, EAI adds the integration of knowledge
stores and the automation of aspects of the knowledge production process,
especially knowledge claim validation. How EAI does this, and EAI's relation
to O-O technology and architecture is developed in "Approaching Enterprise
Information Portals," [10].
The EKP as an Active Agent
I agree that by pulling together converging computing capabilities "the EKP
can be an active agent in our pursuit of knowledge." Indeed, the whole point
of the EKP is to provide more active support for knowledge production,
knowledge integration and knowledge management. This means providing an
infrastructure of intelligent distributed components capable of producing
knowledge, i.e. of learning, and of distributing it through their continuous
interaction and rule processing activity.
The EKP Checklist
Grammer's "EKP checklist" provides a list of important features for all
EIPs, including EKPs, but there are no features on the list that are
distinctive of EKPs alone. In addition, the list of features has an ad hoc
character, suggesting it doesn't proceed from a conceptual framework for
thinking about EIPs and EKPs. I will leave presentation of my own EKP
checklist for another place, but I suggest here that any EKP-distinctive
checklist will need to include:
- functional features supporting knowledge-based personalization,
knowledge-based
automated work flows, collaborative knowledge production, organizational
knowledge production, organizational knowledge integration; KM knowledge
processing, and KM decision making;
- architectural features such as knowledge claim objects and local/global
knowledge claim validation..12
The EKP, KM Strategy, and EKP Selection
In the final section of his article Grammer spells out his view that (a) the
EKP should be implemented in the context of "an organizational KM strategy to
address the cultural issues, business processes and measurements of any
software implementation." And (b) that an EKP should be selected "based upon
its framework for solution." These views provide useful guidance and place
heavy emphasis on overcoming cultural barriers to knowledge sharing. I have
two comments on them however.
First, in this section replace the "K" in EKP or KM with an "I," and replace
"knowledge" with "information." This exercise should persuade you that the
advice being offered by Grammer here is not specific to knowledge portals and
knowledge management, but applies equally well to EIPs and information
Management. So if the purpose here is to offer EKP-specific advice on how to
proceed with implementing an EKP, that purpose is not fulfilled.
Second, on overcoming cultural barriers to knowledge sharing, Grammer
advises (1) addressing the policies that foster employee hoarding, and (2)
implementing incentive systems to reward knowledge workers who contribute to
the developing knowledge base through the EKP. He also points out that such a
system implies that the EKP will be able to track and report on knowledge
worker contributions.
But perhaps it needs to go even farther than that and provide a mechanism
for formulating new knowledge claims, validating previous knowledge claims,
and invalidating them (also a valuable service in a knowledge production
system). This "incentive system" should in some way reflect the pragmatic
importance of the knowledge claims involved, as well as the importance of any
specific contribution to a specific validation process. Further, knowledge
production and knowledge sharing incentive systems may face cultural
resistance in organizations considering EKPs. If EKPs face such resistance, it
may not always be necessary to overcome it by inducing knowledge workers to
proactively share information or knowledge through the EKP system.
Specifically, the collaborative knowledge processing and knowledge management
capabilities of the EKP will integrate all organizational content including
memoranda, e-mails, reports, and any other written documentation of a
collaborative decision making or problem solving process.
Knowledge workers cannot really avoid generating content when working with
others in the Enterprise. This content will naturally incorporate knowledge
claims that may be modeled as knowledge claim objects. It will also
incorporate counterclaims and arguments supporting competing knowledge claims.
The EKP will be able to track the give and take involving such claims whether
or not individuals choose to explicitly and proactively use the portal system
to "publish".13 their content or distribute it to others. And the portal
system will be able to rate knowledge workers based on either their
unobtrusive, proactive, or both types of contributions to the enterprise's
information and knowledge bases.
Conclusion
While Jeff Grammer's article certainly adds some significant ideas about
EKPs to the literature, it is also striking how much of his treatment is
really about EIPs and not EKPs. Most of the features he identifies as EKP
features in fact don't distinguish EIPs from EKPs. Even his remarks on KM
strategy and portal selection apply equally well to EIP selection and
Information Management. The root of the problem seems to be the lack of
conceptual models of knowledge processing and knowledge management underlying
his views on the EKP. Without such models it is hard to distinguish knowledge
processing and knowledge management from information processing and
information management. (See "Approaching Enterprise Information Portals",
Chapter Seven," [10]) As a result, it is also hard to clearly distinguish EIPs
from EKPs.
The purpose of Grammer's article and of this response is to specify the
Enterprise Knowledge Portal. In my view, and for the reasons I've presented
above, he's largely failed in his attempt. I hope that I've done better
through this lengthy commentary, and that in the process I've made progress
toward the goal (not attained yet) of implementing the first Enterprise
Knowledge Portal.
References
[1] Joseph M. Firestone, "DKMS Brief No. Eight: Enterprise Information
Portals and Enterprise Knowledge Portals," Executive Information Systems,
Inc., 1999, available at http://www.dkms.com/White_Papers.
htm.
[2] Hummingbird Communications, Inc. Press Release on pending acquisition,
March 5, 1999, available at:
http://www.hummingbi
rd.com/press/1999/pcdocs.html.
[3] Karen Shegda and Allan Tiedrich, "Knowledge Management = Access +
Collaboration + Retrieval + Analysis," DataPro Industry News, 1999, available
at
http://gartner5.gartnerweb.com/public/static/datapro/industry/indnews28
.html.
[4] "Enterprise Knowledge Portals to Become the Shared Desktop of the Future,"
IDC Press Release March 25, 1999
http://www.idc
.com/Data/Software/content/SW032699PR.htm.
[5] Joseph M. Firestone, "Defining Enterprise Information Portals," Executive
Information Systems, Inc., 1999, available at
http://www.dkms.com/White_Pape
rs.htm..14
[6] Jeff Grammer, "The Enterprise Knowledge Portal," DM Review, March 2000,
pp. 20-24, 37, 79, also available at:
http://www.dmreview.co
m/master_sponsor.cfm?NavID=193&EdID=1940.
[7] Joseph M. Firestone, "Benefits of Enterprise Information Portals and
Corporate Goals," Executive Information Systems, Inc., 1999 available at
http://www.dkms.com/White_Papers.
htm.
[8] Mark McElroy, "The Second Generation of KM," Knowledge Management
(October, 1999), Pp. 86-88, also available at
http://kmmag.com/kmmagn
2/km199910/departf1.htm.
[9] Joseph M. Firestone, "Benefits of Enterprise Information Portals and
Corporate Goals," Executive Information Systems, Inc., 1999) available at
http://www.dkms.com.
[10] Joseph M. Firestone, Approaching Enterprise Information Portals
(Wilmington, DE: Executive Information Systems, Inc., 1999) available at
http://www.dkms.com/EIPMarketing.
htm.
White Paper No. Fifteen
Executive Information Systems Inc
Biography
Joseph M. Firestone, Ph.D.
CEO, Chief Scientist
Executive Information Systems Inc (EIS)
703-461-8823, eisai@home.com
Joseph M. Firestone, Ph.D. is CEO and Chief Scientist of Executive Information Systems (EIS)
Inc. Joe has varied experience in consulting, management, information
technology, decision support, and social systems analysis. Currently, he
focuses on product, methodology, architecture, and solutions development in
Enterprise Information and knowledge Portals, where he performs Knowledge and
knowledge management audits, training, and facilitative systems planning,
requirements capture, analysis, and design. Joe was the first to define and
specify the Enterprise Knowledge Portal Concept. He is widely published in the
areas of Decision Support (especially Enterprise Information and Knowledge
Portals, Data Warehouses/Data Marts, and Data Mining), and Knowledge
Management, and has recently completed a full-length industry report entitled
"Approaching Enterprise
Information Portals." Joe is a founding member of the Knowledge Management
Consortium International (KMCI), Editor of the new KMCI Journal, Chairperson
of the KMCI’s Artificial Knowledge Management Systems SIG, a member of its
Executive Committee, its Metaprise Project, and the KMCI Institute Governing
Council. Joe is a frequent speaker at national conferences on KM and Portals.
He is also developer of the Web site www.dkms.com, one of the most widely visited
Web sites in the Portal and KM fields. DKMS.com has now reached a visitation
rate of 83,000 visits annually.
Executive Information Systems Inc
The Executive Information Systems (EIS) Enterprise Knowledge Portal (EKP) is
the only portal solution that provides the assurance that enterprise decision
making will be based on validated knowledge. EIS’s EKP lets enterprises avoid
the risk involved in Enterprise Information Portals which claim to offer
increases in competitive advantage, ROI, speed of innovation, productivity,
effectiveness and profitability, but have as a central vulnerability the fact
that they are only capable of managing data and information, not
knowledge.
Enterprises using EIP-based solutions when they could be using EKP-based ones,
are gambling that unvalidated information can produce promised EIP benefits.
The central value proposition of the EIS EKP is that it replaces gambling on
unvalidated information with knowledge-based decision making. That is why it
is much more likely to achieve the promised benefits of EIP-based solutions
than its EIP competitors.
For more information, see
www.dkms.com
|
