Case Study: Revolutionizing Knowledge Management at Tech Innovate Corporation Introduction: Tech Innovate Corporation, a prominent technology company, is facing significant challenges in knowledge management,
ICT707 Knowledge Management-Semester1, 2025
ASSESSMENT GUIDE
Assessment Overview
| Assessment tasks | Learning Outcome Mapping | ||||
| Assessment ID | Assessment Item | When due | Weighting | ULO# | CLO# for MITS |
| 1 | KM Strategy Report (Individual)(2000 Words) | Session 6 | 30% | 1 | 1,2,3 |
| 2 | KM Tasks Design Report (Individual)(2000 Words) | Session 9 | 30% | 2,3 | 2,3 |
| 3* | KM Solution Design Report and Demonstration(Group) (2500-3000 Words) |
Session13 |
40% |
2,4 |
3,4,5 |
Note:*denotes ‘Hurdle Assessment Item’ that students must achieve atleast 40% in this item to pass the unit.
Referencing guides
You must reference all the sources of information you have used in your assessments. Please use the IEEE referencing style when referencing your assessments in this unit. Refer to the library’s reference guides for more information.
- https://elearning.vit.edu.au/pluginfile.php/473840/block_html/content/VIT%20Library%20Referencing%20-%20IEEE%20-%2007042020.pdf
Academic misconduct
VIT ensures that the integrity of its students’ academic studies follows an acceptable level of excellence. VIT will adhere to its VITPolicies, Procedures and Forms where it explains the importance of staff and student honesty in relation to academic work. It outlines the kinds of behaviors that are "academic misconduct", including plagiarism.
Late submissions
In cases where there are no accepted mitigating circumstances as determined through VIT Policies, Procedures and Forms, late submission of assessments will lead automatically to the imposition of a penalty. Penalties will be applied as soon as the deadline is reached.
Short extensions and special consideration
Special Consideration is a request for:
- Extensions of the due date for an assessment, other than an examination (e.g. assignment extension).
- Special Consideration (Special Consideration in relation to a Completed assessment, including an end-of-unit Examination).
Students wishing to request Special Consideration in relation to an assessment the due date of which has not yet passed must engage in written emails to the teaching team to Request for Special Consideration as early as possible and prior to start time of the assessment due date, along with any accompanying documents, such as medical certificates.
For more information, visit VIT Policies, Procedures and Forms.
Inclusive and equitable assessment
Reasonable adjustment in assessment methods will be made to accommodate students with a documented disability or impairment. Contact the unit teaching team for more information.
Contract Cheating
Contract cheating usually involves the purchase of an assignment or piece of research from another party. This may be facilitated by a fellow student, friend or purchased on a website. Other forms of contract cheating include paying another person to sit an exam in the student's place.
Contract cheating warning:
- By paying someone else to complete your academic work, you don’t learn as much as you could have if you did the work yourself.
- You are not prepared for the demands of your future employment.
- You could be found guilty of academic misconduct.
- Many off or pay contract cheating companies recycle assignments despite guarantees of“Original, plagiarism-free work” so similarity is easily detected by TurnitIn.
- Penalties for academic misconduct include suspension and exclusion.
- Students in some disciplines are required to disclose any findings of guilt for academic misconduct before being accepted into certain professions (e.g., law).
- You might disclose your personal and financial information in an unsafe way, leaving yourself open to many risks including possible identity theft.
- You also leave yourself open to blackmail-if you pay someone else to do an assignment for you, they know you have engaged in fraudulent behavior and can always blackmail you.
Grades
We determine your grades to the following Grading Scheme:
| Grade | Percentage |
| A | 80%– 100% |
| B | 70%– 79% |
| C | 60%– 69% |
| D | 50%–59% |
| F | 0%– 49% |
Assessment Details for Assessment Item1:
Overview
| Assessment tasks | Learning Outcome Mapping | ||||
| Assessment ID | Assessment Item | When due | Weighting | ULO# | CLO# for BITS |
| 1 |
KM Strategy Report (Individual)(2000Words) |
Session 6 |
30% |
1 |
1,2,3 |
Case Study: Revolutionizing Knowledge Management at Tech Innovate Corporation Introduction:
Tech Innovate Corporation, a prominent technology company, is facing significant challenges in knowledge management, hindering innovation and
Growth. This case study explores the current state of knowledge management at Tech Innovate and proposes strategies to overcome these challenges.
Case Background:
Tech Innovate Corporation is grappling with the following knowledge management challenges:
Silos of Information:
Teams and departments are working in isolation, limiting the flow of knowledge across the organization.
Lack of Codification Standards:
Knowledge documentation lacks uniformity, making it challenging to retrieve and apply information efficiently.
Limited Knowledge Sharing Culture:
Employees are not actively participating in knowledge-sharing practices, impacting collaboration and innovation.
Technological Barriers:
Outdated technology hampers effective knowledge sharing and collaboration within the organization.
Questions:
1.Silos of Information:
Question: How can Tech Innovate identify existing silos of information within the organization and encourage cross-functional knowledge sharing?
2.Lack of Codification Standards:
Question: What steps can Tech Innovate take to establish standardized codification practices for knowledge documentation, ensuring uniform adoption across the organization?
3.Limited Knowledge Sharing Culture:
Question: What initiatives can be implemented to foster a culture of knowledge sharing among employees at Tech Innovate?
4.Technological Barriers:
Question: Conduct an assessment of Tech Innovate's current technology infrastructure. What upgrades or new tools are recommended to enhance knowledge sharing?
Submission Instructions
All submissions are to be submitted through Turnitin. Drop-boxes linked to Turnitin will be set up in Moodle. Assessments not submitted through these drop-boxes will not be considered. Submissions must be made by the end of the session.
The Turnitin similarity score will be used to determine any plagiarism of your submitted assessment. Turnitin will check conference websites, Journal articles, online resources, and your peer’s submissions for plagiarism. You can see your Turnitin similarity score when you submit your assessments to the appropriate drop box. If your similarity score is of concern, you can change your assessment and resubmit. However, re- submission is only allowed before the submission due date and time. You cannot make re-submissions after the due date and time have elapsed.
Note: All work is due by the due date and time. Late submissions will be penalized at 20% of the assessment final grade per day, including weekends.
Marking Criteria/Rubric
You will be assessed on the following marking criteria/Rubric:
| Assessment criteria | Exceptional>=80% | Admirable70%–79% | Creditable 60%- 69% | Acceptable 50%-59% | Unsatisfactory<=49 |
| Introduction & Context | Exceptional clarity in | Provides a clear | Adequately | The Introduction is unclear or missing, and there is a lack of context for the case study. Shows a poor understanding of Tech Innovate's challenges. | No Submission |
| Introducing the case | Introduction and | introduces the case | |||
| Study and setting the | Context for the case | Study but lacks | |||
| context. Demonstrates | study. Demonstrates a | Depth in presenting | |||
| a profound | good understanding | the context. | |||
| Understanding of the | Of TechInnovate's | Demonstrates a | |||
| Challenges faced by | challenges. | Basic understanding | |||
| Tech Innovate. | Of Tech Innovate's | ||||
| challenges. | |||||
| Identification of Challenges | Thoroughly identifies and articulates all | Identifies and articulates most | Identifies challenges faced by | Fails to identify or poorly articulate the challenges faced by Tech Innovate. Lacks critical analysis and exploration. | No Submission |
| Challenges faced by | Challenges faced by | Tech Innovate but | |||
| Tech Innovate. | Tech Innovate. | Lacks depth in | |||
| Demonstrates | Provides a good | Analysis and | |||
| Insightful analysis and | Analysis and | exploration. | |||
| Exploration of each | Exploration of the | ||||
| challenge. | majority of | ||||
| challenges. | |||||
| Strategies to Overcome Challenges | Develops highly effective and | Develops effective strategies to | Develops strategies to overcome | Strategies to overcome challenges | No Submission |
| Innovative strategies | Overcome challenges. | Challenges but | are ineffective, | ||
| to overcome | Strategies are well- | Lacks depth in | Poorly reasoned, or | ||
| challenges. Strategies | Reasoned and aligned | Reasoning or | Not aligned with best | ||
| Are well-reasoned, | With best practices. | Alignment with | practices. |
practical, and aligned with best practices. | Best practices. | ||||
| Overall Cohesiveness & Structure | Demonstrates exceptional | Exhibits have good organization and | Demonstrates basic organization and | Lacks organization and structure. | No Submission |
| Organization and | structure. Transitions | structure. | Transitions between | ||
| structure. Transitions | Between sections are | Transitions | Sections are abrupt | ||
| Between sections are | smooth, contributing | Between sections | Or missing, hindering | ||
| seamless, enhancing | To overall coherence. | May lack | overall coherence. | ||
| overall coherence. | smoothness, | ||||
| Affecting overall | |||||
| coherence. | |||||
| References & Citations | Exceptional use of | Good use of relevant | Adequate use of | Poor use of | No Submission |
| Diverse and relevant | references. Citations | references. | references. Citations | ||
| references. Citations | Are mostly accurate | Citations may | are inaccurate, | ||
| Are accurate and | And follow the | contain | inconsistent, or | ||
| Follow prescribed | Prescribed citation | Inaccuracies or | absent. | ||
| Citation style | style. | Inconsistencies in | |||
| consistently. | Following the | ||||
| Prescribed citation | |||||
| style. | |||||
| Overall Quality & Depth of Analysis | Exceptional depth of analysis, providing | Provides a good depth of analysis, offering | Offers a basic depth of analysis, | Lacks depth of analysis, presenting | No Submission |
| Nuanced insights into | Insightful perspectives | Presenting surface- | Shallow or inaccurate | ||
| Challenges and | On challenges and | Level insights into | Insights into | ||
| strategies. | strategies. | Challenges and | Challenges and | ||
| Demonstrates an | Demonstrates a solid | strategies. | strategies. | ||
| exceptional | Understanding of the | ||||
| Understanding of the | Subject matter. | ||||
| Subject matter. |
Assessment Details for Assessment Item 2:
Overview
| Assessment tasks | Learning Outcome Mapping | ||||
| Assessment ID | Assessment Item | When due | Weighting | ULO# | CLO# for BITS |
| 2 | KM Tasks Design Report (Individual)(2000Words) | Session 9 | 30% | 2,3 | 2,3 |
Assignment Title: Designing a Knowledge Management Solution: A Practice-Based Case Study Objective
The objective of this assignment is to evaluate and design an effective Knowledge Management (KM) solution for an organization through a practice- based case study. The assignment will focus on the evaluation of tools and techniques for knowledge capture, codification, and sharing, as well as the
Design of a comprehensive KM solution using five distinct stages.
Tasks
Introduction (Approx.300words):
- Briefly introduce the concept of Knowledge Management (KM) and its significance in organizational success.
- Provide an overview of the case study organization without revealing its identity.
Evaluation of Tools and Techniques (Approx.500words):
- Identify and evaluate at least three tools or techniques for knowledge capture, codification, and sharing in an organizational context.
- Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each tool/technique.
- Justify the suitability of each tool/technique for the case study organization.
Case Study Overview (Approx.200words):
- Provide a concise overview of the case study organization, its industry, and any specific challenges or opportunities related to knowledge management.
Designing the KM Solution-Five Distinct Stages (Approx. 700words): Stage 1: Knowledge Identification and Capture:
- Describe how the organization will identify and capture tacit and explicit knowledge.
- Propose specific activities or processes for knowledge identification.
Stage2: Knowledge Codification:
- Outline theme for codifying knowledge within the organization.
- Discuss the importance of categorization and structure in knowledge codification.
Stage3: Knowledge Storage and Retrieval:
- Design a system for storing and retrieving knowledge efficiently.
- Explore technological solutions that support knowledge storage and retrieval.
Stage4: Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration:
- Develop strategies for promoting knowledge sharing and collaboration among employees.
- Consider both formal and informal channels for knowledge dissemination.
Stage5: Knowledge Maintenance and Continuous Improvement:
- Propose mechanisms for maintaining the relevance and accuracy of stored knowledge.
- Suggest ways in which the KM solution can adapt to changing organizational needs.
Conclusion (Approx.300words):
- Summarize the key findings and recommendations.
- Emphasize the potential impact of the proposed KM solution on the organization's overall performance.
Submission Instructions
All submissions are to be submitted through Turnitin. Drop-boxes linked to Turnitin will be setup in Moodle. Assessments not submitted through these drop- boxes will not be considered. Submissions must be made by the end of the session.
The Turnitin similarity score will be used to determine any plagiarism of your submitted assessment. Turnitin will check conference websites, Journal articles, online resources, and your peer’s submissions for plagiarism. You can see your Turnitin similarity score when you submit your assessments to the appropriate drop-box. If your similarity score is of concern, you can change your assessment and resubmit. However, re-submission is only allowed before the submission due date and time. You cannot make re-submissions after the due date and time have elapsed.
Note: All work is due by the due date and time. Late submissions will be penalized at 20% of the assessment final grade per day, including weekends.
Marking Criteria/Rubric
You will be assessed on the following marking criteria/Rubric:
| Criteria | Exceptional (>=80%) | Admirable (70%–79%) | Creditable(60%- 69%) | Acceptable(50%- 59%) | Unsatisfactory (<=49%) |
| Introduction (Approx.300words) | Comprehensive intro to KM, emphasizing significance. | Clear intro to KM with good emphasis on significance. | Basic intro to KM, may lack depth in emphasizing significance. | Limited intro to KM without clear emphasis. | Fails to introduce KM effectively. |
Tools and Techniques Evaluation (Approx.500words) | Identify and thoroughly evaluate at least three tools/techniques. | Identify and evaluate with good analysis. | Identify and evaluate but may lack depth or overlook some aspects. | Identify with basic evaluation and limited analysis. | Fail to identify and evaluate effectively. |
| Case Study Overview (Approx.200words) | Concise overview of the organization, its industry, and KM challenges/opportunities. | Clear overview with relevant details. | Basic overview, may lack depth or key details. | Limited overview with minimal relevant details. | Fails to provide an effective overview. |
| Designing the KM | Comprehensive plan | Solid plan with some | Basic plan with | Limited plan with | No comprehensive |
Solution (Approx.700words) | for five stages integrating identification, codification, storage/retrieval, sharing/collaboration, maintenance/improvement. | gaps or lack of specificity in activities. | Significant gaps or lacks practicality. | Minimal practicality. | Plan for knowledge identification. |
Conclusion (Approx.300words) | Comprehensive summary of key findings and recommendations, Emphasizing potential impact. | Summarizes key findings and recommendations effectively, Highlighting potential impact. | Basic summary with some key findings and recommendations. | Limited summary with minimal emphasis on key findings. | Fails to summarize effectively. |
| Citations & References | All references and Citations are correctly Written and present. | One reference or citations missing or incorrectly written. | Two references or citations missing or incorrectly written. | Three references or citations missing or incorrectly written. | Fails to provide the references and citation |
Assessment Details for Assessment Item 3:
Designing a Knowledge Management (KM) Solution Introduction Overview
| Assessment tasks | Learning Outcome Mapping | ||||
| Assessment ID | Assessment Item | When due | Weighting | ULO# | CLO# for BITS |
| 3* | KM Solution Design Report and Demonstration(Group) (2500-3000 Words) |
Session13 |
40% |
2,4 |
3,4,5 |
Note:*denotes ‘Hurdle Assessment Item’ that students must achieve atleast 40% in this item to pass the unit.
This group assessment centers on crafting a Knowledge Management (KM) solution for a real-world case study. With a focus on ethical, legal, and management aspects, the assignment challenges groups to collaboratively design an effective KM solution. As organizations grapple with information overload, this task not only sharpens practical KMs kills but also emphasizes the crucial dimensions of ethics, legality, and effective management.
Introduction (Approx.300 words)
- Briefly introduce the concept of Knowledge Management (KM) and its significance.
- Provide an overview of the selected practice-based case study without revealing its identity.
- Clearly state the purpose of the report, emphasizing the focus on designing an effective KM solution with ethical, legal, and management considerations.
Literature Review (Approx.600words)
- Review relevant literature on KM tools, techniques, and ethical considerations in KM.
- Explore legal aspects related to knowledge sharing, data privacy, and intellectual property in an organizational context.
- Investigate management issues related to implementing KM solutions, such as resistance to change, organizational culture, and leadership.
Evaluation of Tools and Techniques (Approx.600words)
- Identify and evaluate at least three tools or techniques for knowledge capture, codification and sharing.
- Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each tool/technique.
- Justify the suitability of each tool/technique for the selected case study organization.
Designing the KM Solution- Five Distinct Stages (Approx. 1200words) Stage 1: Knowledge Identification and Capture
- Describe how the organization will identify and capture tacit and explicit knowledge.
- Propose specific activities or processes for knowledge identification.
Stage2: Knowledge Codification
- Outline methods for codifying knowledge within the organization.
- Discuss the importance of categorization and structure in knowledge codification.
Stage3: Knowledge Storage and Retrieval
- Design a system for storing and retrieving knowledge efficiently.
- Explore technological solutions that support knowledge storage and retrieval.
Stage4: Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration
- Develop strategies for promoting knowledge sharing and collaboration among employees.
- Consider both formal and informal channels for knowledge dissemination.
Stage5: Knowledge Maintenance and Continuous Improvement
- Propose mechanisms for maintaining the relevance and accuracy of stored knowledge.
- Suggest ways in which the KM solution can adapt to changing organizational needs.
Ethical, Legal, and Management Considerations (Approx.500words)
- Analyze ethical considerations related to knowledge sharing and the impact on stakeholders.
- Examine legal implications and compliance requirements for the proposed KM solution.
- Discuss potential management challenges and strategies for overcoming them.
Conclusion (Approx.300words)
- Summarize key findings from the literature review and the proposed KM solution.
- Emphasize the significance of ethical, legal, and management considerations in the design of the KM solution.
- Provide a seamless transition to the individual assessment components.
Individual Assessment Components (Approx.300 words each) Peer Review Report:
- Evaluate the contributions of each group member.
- Assess the effectiveness of collaboration and communication within the group.
- Provide constructive feedback on areas of improvement for each member.
Self-Reflective Report:
- Reflect on your individual contributions to the group project.
- Discuss the challenges faced and lessons learned during the collaborative process.
- Outline personal growth in understanding KM, ethical considerations, legal aspects, and management challenges.
References (As needed)
Submission Instructions
All submissions are to be submitted through Turnitin. Drop-boxes linked to Turnitin will be setup in Moodle. Assessments not submitted through these drop- boxes will not be considered. Submissions must be made by the end of the session.
The Turnitin similarity score will be used to determine any plagiarism of your submitted assessment. Turnitin will check conference websites, Journal articles, online resources, and your peer’s submissions for plagiarism. You can see your Turnitin similarity score when you submit your assessments to the appropriate drop-box. If your similarity score is of concern, you can change your assessment and resubmit. However resubmissions only allowed before the submission due date and time. You cannot make re-submissions after the due date and time have elapsed.
Note: All work is due by the due date and time. Late submissions will be penalized at 20% of the assessment final grade per day, including weekends