background preloader

165 Herramientas Web 2.0 distribuidas en 20 categorías

165 Herramientas Web 2.0 distribuidas en 20 categorías

Herramientas Web2 0 Herramientas 2.0 قالب وردپرسافزونه وردپرسقالب صحیفهافزونه Yoast Seo Premium 100 HERRAMIENTAS DE LA WEB 2.0 PARA EL AULA | juandon. Innovación y conocimiento juandon Hay nuevas herramientas web 2.0 que aparece todos los días. Aunque algunas de estas herramientas no estaban destinados originalmente para su uso en el aula, pueden ser herramientas de aprendizaje extremadamente efectivo para la tecnología de hoy en día los estudiantes y sus profesores orientada emprendedora. Muchos de estos maestros son la búsqueda de los últimos productos y tecnologías para ayudar a encontrar maneras más fáciles y eficaces para crear productivo de aprendizaje en sus estudiantes. Más y más profesores están utilizando los blogs, podcasts y wikis, como otro enfoque de la enseñanza. Interactividad Utilice estas herramientas para la participación activa de los estudiantes en el aula. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Siete. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. melocotón Foto Haga que los estudiantes crear historias con temas y dejar comentarios para cada uno. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20. Compromiso 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 40. La motivación 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

El código de los laboratorios de innovación. El caso de Medialab Prado Llevamos un tiempo pensando y prototipando los modelos de laboratorios de innovación, tanto como parte de las estrategias empresariales, como para la incubación o aceleración de nuevas empresas o aquellos pensados para la acción ciudadana. Por una parte, los modelos de innovación abierta necesitan de este tipo de espacios y procesos. Por otra parte, el empoderamiento ciudadano y la participación pro-activa se facilitan cuando existe un espacio público real y efectivo, y un laboratorio ciudadano es una forma de materializar esa idea de espacio público. Medialab Prado constituye un caso paradigmático de laboratorio en el que además se mezclan procesos relacionados con la cultura, la tecnología y el diseño, con el activismo cívico y diferentes formas de emprendimiento social. Desde mi punto de vista, Medialab se conforma por 4 capas de herramientas, cultura y procesos. 1. 2. 3.

Knowledge management Knowledge management (KM) is the process of capturing, developing, sharing, and effectively using organizational knowledge.[1] It refers to a multi-disciplined approach to achieving organisational objectives by making the best use of knowledge.[2] An established discipline since 1991 (see Nonaka 1991), KM includes courses taught in the fields of business administration, information systems, management, and library and information sciences.[3][4] More recently, other fields have started contributing to KM research; these include information and media, computer science, public health, and public policy.[5] Columbia University and Kent State University offer dedicated Master of Science degrees in Knowledge Management.[6][7][8] History[edit] In 1999, the term personal knowledge management was introduced; it refers to the management of knowledge at the individual level.[14] Research[edit] Dimensions[edit] The Knowledge Spiral as described by Nonaka & Takeuchi. Strategies[edit] Motivations[edit]

Knowledge Management Strategies: Formulation and Evolution | KM by Madanmohan Rao; August 22, 2010 Editor, KM Chronicles If you are ever in Bangalore on the third Wednesday of any month, you must attend the Bangalore K-Community: the monthly gathering of knowledge management professionals! The event was hosted in the Oracle offices near Bangalore Dairy Circle, and the canteen has spectacular views of the city’s green cover (and concrete jungle!). Nirmala Palaniappan, Senior Manager, KM, Oracle APAC, began by outlining key foundations for an effective KM strategy: organisation culture, management philosophies, HR policies and fundamental skills (eg. in conversing, collaborating). Nirmala classified KM strategies into five types: dictator, broker, psychologist, peacemaker, and doctor/surgeon. The psychologist approach is centred on personal knowledge management and is IT-savvy in nature (eg. it relies on tools for artificial intelligence and business intelligence). Panellist Bios:

Knowledge Management evolution - tool, toolbox, framework I had some interesting conversations in the last few weeks on the evolution of KM, especially given Nancy Dixon's evolution model. It made me ponder on my own KM thinking over the past 19 years, and how that has evolved. Stage 1 - focus on one or two tools When I was working in Norway in the early to mid 90s, our KM approach was very simple. We were focusing on one or two KM processes - the Retrospect, and a Lessons Database, under the care of a Knowledge Manager (me). In hindsight, this was a naive and rudimentary approach, and the lessons built up and up in the database until it became too full and too daunting for people to use as reference. There are quite a few organisations still at this stage. But one tool alone will not deliver Knowledge Management. Stage 2 - build a toolbox. When I left Norway in 1997 and joined the BP Knowledge Management team, we already realised that we needed more than one KM tool. There are many organisations at this stage. Stage 3 - implement a Framework.

The Evolution of Knowledge Management Knowledge management has become an important and vital practice in the enterprise. As we have shifted from an industrial-based society to an information-based one, many jobs and tasks have been automated by machinery. The result is a smaller workforce and the advent of the knowledge worker – an employee whose job depends on tacit information that is rarely documented, limiting an organization’s ability to draw upon it in the future. Implementing solutions to collect and preserve tacit knowledge has become a high priority, allowing companies to create digital libraries of employee experiences and practices for future generations. The transfer of knowledge has evolved from the written word on rocks and paper to spoken stories heard live via telephones to digital, virtual, real-time communities on the web. Today’s #E2sday looks at the evolution of knowledge management, starting from our ancient foundation to today’s high tech solutions.

The evolution of knowledge management and the Technology Eras hypothesis « Short Takes The other day a member of a web group I’m in asked, somewhat rhetorically, when we thought the US Fed would incorporate knowledge management into its official work agreements and policies the way it had information management (thank you, Albert S). His question arose from a discussion about how difficult it is to get mainstream buy in for KM as a legitimate body of concepts and practices in mature enterprises. This is a great question, prompting me to draft up for the first time a hypothesis I’ve mulled around for a decade or longer. So here goes. I believe one approach to detecting when KM will going “mainstream” is based on my own Hypothesis of Technology Eras. Upon the dawn of a new technology era the first application of the new technology is the optimization of the one that preceded it. For instance, when we moved from the agrarian to the industrial age, one of the first things that happened was industrialization of farming, leading to massive improvements in farm productivity.

Web 2.0 World Wide Web sites that use technology beyond the static pages of earlier Web sites A tag cloud (a typical Web 2.0 phenomenon in itself) presenting Web 2.0 themes Web 2.0 (also known as participative (or participatory)[1] web and social web)[2] refers to websites that emphasize user-generated content, ease of use, participatory culture and interoperability (i.e., compatible with other products, systems, and devices) for end users. The term was coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999[3] and later popularized by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty at the first O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference in late 2004.[4][5][6] Although the term mimics the numbering of software versions, it does not denote a formal change in the nature of the World Wide Web, but merely describes a general change that occurred during this period as interactive websites proliferated and came to overshadow the older, more static websites of the original Web.[7] History[edit] Web 1.0[edit] Characteristics[edit] Web 2.0[edit] Search Tags

Open innovation Open innovation is a term promoted by Henry Chesbrough, adjunct professor and faculty director of the Center for Open Innovation at the Haas School of Business at the University of California,[1] in a book of the same name,[2] though the idea and discussion about some consequences (especially the interfirm cooperation in R&D) date as far back as the 1960s[citation needed]. Some instances of open innovation are Open collaboration,[3] a pattern of collaboration, innovation, and production. The concept is also related to user innovation, cumulative innovation, know-how trading, mass innovation and distributed innovation. “Open innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology”.[2] Alternatively, it is "innovating with partners by sharing risk and sharing reward Advantages[edit] Disadvantages[edit] Models of open innovation[edit] See also[edit]

Gagein: A New Way of Tracking Corporate Business News If you are trying to keep track of your competitors, you have a variety of tools that can make your search for business news easier. At the low end (meaning free) is Google Alerts and Google News, and you can build your own RSS feed collection and examine what comes through that pipeline. There are also paid gathering tools from Hoovers, Lexus and, just to name a couple of examples. GageIn is trying to enter this market with the release of its Content Platform and the integration with Salesforce and LinkedIn data repositories. The trick is in the filtering, to be sure: you don't want to plow through irrelevant searches or receive too few alerts about the things that you want to track. GageIn scans millions of local and regional news sources to aggregate hyper-targeted local news about both large and small companies alike.

Does Your Strategy Match Your Competitive Environment? - Martin Reeves by Martin Reeves | 12:00 PM August 28, 2012 How predictable are competitive conditions in your industry? How much power does your company have to shape its underlying competitive environment? This should hardly surprise you. To understand the scope of this problem, take a look at this chart: What it shows is how accurately executives in various industries estimated how predictable and how malleable their industries are. The problem with this is obvious, of course: You can’t begin to tailor your strategy to the conditions of your industry if you don’t perceive them correctly. What’s more, as we’ve just done, many executives lump “predictable” and “malleable” together, and divide the universe of competitive environments very broadly into two parts, assuming that a predictable environment is one they can control and an unpredictable one is one they can’t. These distinctions are so important because the four different strategic environments require four different styles of strategy execution.

Quartz Communications · Competitive Intelligence: 5 things you can learn about your competition through social media