Assessing Knowledge Management in the Power Sector through a Connectionist Model

  • Álvaro Herrero
  • Lourdes Sáiz
  • Emilio Corchado
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 71)


It has been proven that Artificial Intelligence, in general, and Artificial Neural Networks, in particular, can be successfully applied to problems in the field of Knowledge Management (KM). One such problem is the identification and assessment of a company’s KM status. Nowadays the importance of KM to organisational survival and for the maintenance of competitive strength is widely acknowledged. Several connectionist models for the assessment and analysis of KM status are proposed and applied in this work. These models account for the specific features of a company in the Energy sector/Power sector: a dynamic, essential service and one of the basic pillars that supports the so-called “welfare state”, constituting an established strategic sector in any globalized economy.


Knowledge Management Exploratory Projection Pursuit Maximum Likelihood Hebbian Learning Energy/Power Sector 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Collis, D.J., Montgomery, C.A.: Competing on Resources: Strategy in the 1990s. Harv. Bus. Rev. 73(4), 118–128 (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maranto-Vargas, D., Rangel, R.G.T.: Development of Internal Resources and Capabilities as Sources of Differentiation of SME under Increased Global Competition: A Field Study in Mexico. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 74(1), 90–99 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wiig, K.M.: Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking about Thinking-how People and Organizations Represent, Create, and Use Knowledge. Schema Press, Limited (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soo, C.W., Devinney, T.M., Midgley, D.F.: External Knowledge Acquisition, Creativity and Learning in Organisational Problem Solving. International Journal of Technology Management 38(1), 137–159 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pearson, K.: On Lines and Planes of Closest Fit to Systems of Points in Space. Philosophical Magazine 2(6), 559–572 (1901)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oja, E.: Neural Networks, Principal Components, and Subspaces. International Journal of Neural Systems 1, 61–68 (1989)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedman, J.H., Tukey, J.W.: A Projection Pursuit Algorithm for Exploratory Data-Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Computers 23(9), 881–890 (1974)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Metaxiotis, K.: Better Management of Energy Knowledge: the Key for Success in the Energy Sector. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology 22(2/3), 104–108 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carpenter, S., Rudge, S.: Benchmarking KM at British Energy. Knowledge Management 6(6), 3 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corchado, E., MacDonald, D., Fyfe, C.: Maximum and Minimum Likelihood Hebbian Learning for Exploratory Projection Pursuit. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 8(3), 203–225 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corchado, E., Fyfe, C.: Connectionist Techniques for the Identification and Suppression of Interfering Underlying Factors. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 17(8), 1447–1466 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fyfe, C., Corchado, E.: Maximum Likelihood Hebbian Rules. In: 10th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, ESANN 2002 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Álvaro Herrero
    • 1
  • Lourdes Sáiz
    • 1
  • Emilio Corchado
    • 2
  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentUniversity of BurgosBurgosSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Informática y AutomáticaUniversity of SalamancaSalamancaSpain

Personalised recommendations