My latest book. Search This Blog. Popular Posts What is a Lesson Learned? Nick Milton Nick Milton I am a director for Knoco, the international firm of knowledge management consultants, offering a range of knowledge management services, including knowledge management strategy, knowledge management framework development, and knowledge management implementation services.
I also have an interest in Lessons Learned View my complete profile. Subscribe To Posts Atom. Comments Atom. Subscribe to the Knoco newsletter. Flag Counter. NASA has a robust program of exploration, technology development and scientific research that will last for years to come. Here is what's next for NASA:. Credit: NASA. The Research Flight Deck is being used to develop safer and more efficient cockpit technologies. NASA is designing and building the capabilities to send humans to explore the solar system, working toward a goal of landing humans on Mars.
We will build the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, based on the design for the Orion capsule, with a capacity to take four astronauts on day missions. NASA is also moving forward with the development of the Space Launch System -- an advanced heavy-lift launch vehicle that will provide an entirely new national capability for human exploration beyond Earth's orbit. The SLS rocket will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system, which will include shuttle engines for the core stage and the J-2X engine for the upper stage.
We are developing the technologies we will need for human exploration of the solar system, including solar electric propulsion, refueling depots in orbit, radiation protection and high-reliability life support systems.
The International Space Station is the centerpiece of our human spaceflight activities in low Earth orbit. The ISS is fully staffed with a crew of six, and American astronauts will continue to live and work there in space 24 hours a day, days a year. Part of the U. Commercial companies are well on their way to providing cargo and crew flights to the ISS, allowing NASA to focus its attention on the next steps into our solar system.
It's important that we acknowledge those users who have continued their contributions with the same passion as when they started. Finally, let's take a look at views and revisions across all wikis. Our increasing participation by active contributors is constantly growing our collective knowledge base. Currently, that content is being consumed viewed , times per month, spread out across about unique viewers.
Wikipedia started in [15] , but how does our first 5 years compare to their first 5 years? Keep in mind that Wikipedia is open to the public Internet with the scope of the sum of all human knowledge [16] while ours began small, only focused on International Space Station ISS EVA operations knowledge and eventually growing to include the sum of all ISS knowledge. The plots above compare our number of content pages [13] and our number of active contributors [14] to those of the first 5 years of Wikipedia.
While we are certainly not 1-for-1 in volume, there are definite similarities in the slopes. If we look at specific numbers we can compare ratios. At the 5-year mark Wikipedia had about , content pages and 21, active contributors. That's a ratio of about 40 pages per user. At our 5-year mark we have about 30, content pages and active contributors for a ratio of about pages per user.
Our wiki contributors have been busy! We're doing really well with productivity of active contributors, but how well are we doing when comparing page views per active contributors? English Wikipedia currently averages 8 billion page views per month and 30, active contributors per month [19]. First of all, think about the numbers here. For the billions of people who use English Wikipedia, there are only 30, active contributors updating the information.
Now if we divide the 8B page views by 30k active contributors per month, that's an average of , page views per active contributor.
For the NASA wikis, we average 88, page views per month and we have active contributors per month. That's an average of page views per active contributor. So on one hand, you could say Wikipedia is getting a lot more use out of the content they curate. But on the other hand, this means our contributors are much more active keeping our information up-to-date and we have a higher percentage of users who feel compelled to contribute. We'll talk about that more in the next section.
If the proportions of the pie chart look strange, it's because creators are actually a subset of contributors. Anyone who has created new pages is inherently also a contributor. In comparison, we can see how our community has nearly twice as many contributors as typical Internet communities. Additionally, most of those contributors are bold enough to create new pages. This series of plots looks at activity grouped by the hour of day. In the heatmap, you can see that most people make revisions during "normal" work hours.
You can also see which wikis are more active than the others, with the EVA wiki ablaze in red. In the monochromatic histogram, we see again how most people contribute during the normal work hours. Note the lunchtime lull, though. Perhaps wiki contributors are afraid of getting sauce on their keyboards.
The next two plots are much more colorful. These still show revisions grouped by hour, but the colors are significant. The first plot, where colors represent different wikis, shows an interesting red blob in the early hours of the day. Which group makes up the majority of the contributions between 2 and 5 AM Central Time? The Houston Support Group does, because of their time spent in Russia! The last plot, where colors represent different users, tells us that the HSG blob is largely the result of a single, dedicated user spending his time abroad contributing to his group's knowledge base.
These two plots help to show the diversity of our wikis. The first is split into bars by wiki. Each color within a bar represents a different user in that wiki. The size of each color block is based on how much that user contributes relative to the rest of the users.
So you can easily see how the older, larger wikis have become more diverse in their contributor base. Younger wikis still rely on the few motivated users adding content until they reach a critical mass for group adoption. The second plot shows each year represented by a bar. Each year's bar is split by users, where the size is based on that user's contribution compared to the rest.
As you may expect, our wiki contributor base gets more and more diverse each year. You might notice the large purple block in That's due to a single user importing a massive amount of data from another database into the wiki, where it can be better integrated with all the other information. Below is an animation showing how the page grew and evolved over those 5 days. This is just one example of how our knowledge capture can grow organically with the right participation.
Our number of wikis is growing. As we spawn new wikis, each of those groups benefit from the power of the wiki but as a whole our knowledge remains segregated by org code. We are evaluating options for the best wiki architecture for the ISS Program. This might include creating a large ISS wiki to hold the bulk of each group's knowledge that is not under special data protection.
This might also include developing software to automatically transfer data between a network of wikis. Youtube link. Our friends at Wikipedia made this promotional video because they think it's cool that NASA uses their software. Because we find their software so useful, we have engaged the Wikimedia Foundation in conferences, hackathons, and of course the online community.
We give back to the open source project through community activity, improving their software extensions, and writing and sharing our own extensions. In this recorded presentation to the FOD OSO group, we provide discussion of the FOD Wikis, why we can trust the data found there, and why it is an excellent resource unlike the other knowledge management systems we've all seen.
Presenters make the case that the wiki is the future for our content management. When I first started using the wiki I felt a little lost, like I wanted to understand the "folder structure" of it, but then I thought to myself - "Why do I not feel this way when I Google for something? It's not a hierarchical structure, it's a web.
It's all about making sure you name pages in a way that most people are likely to find them, creating redirects for alternate search terms, and being smart about what you type into the search box - just like on any browser search page. It provides an excellent place to post knowledge so that once a person in the group has learned something others don't have to dig up the information the same way -- they have an easier way to search for it.
One important feature is the searchability of meeting minutes. Meeting agendas are sorted by date on outside websites. The wiki allows for the minutes to be searched allowing the agenda and the presentation to be found by people who have not memorized the date or the board the topic went to. It has made incremental updates to documentation easier.
This lowers the barrier to keeping documents up to date since you don't have to make big updates and then go through a lengthy approval process which discourages the updates.
0コメント