Question: MindTree uses different knowledge management systems and tools such as the kernel. Need to identify all of the systems and tools they used, and categorize them according to four stages of Knowledge creation/capture, Knowledge storage/retrieval, knowledge transfer, and Knowledge application based on their actual applications and uses.

Knowledge mongol/rent Systems Enabling Processes MndTree had built a hierarchy of KM systems, which it depicted as a pyramid. At the bottom were systems that helped people share knowledge, in the middle were collaborative systems, and at the top were systems that helped with innovation. A manager in the Kl'vt organization explained: \"We believe that you have to have a social process in place first. Only then can you become highly collaborative. After that you start innovating.\"r Current systems MindTree created its first system, KnowledgeNet, a centralized knowledge repository, in 2001. It enabled people to share knowledge but many viewed it as \"static\"r and of limited value. In 2004, MindTree launched Connected Minds, a community portal that supported the community movement in virtual space and thus augmented facetoface community meetings. Connected l'innds facilitated virtual collaboration through questionandanswer sessions, blog entries, document uploads, and bookmarking. It also provided details of upcoming coirmumity events. All comnumities were represented on this portal, with each designing its own site and customizing it in terms of membership rules, access control rules, and other features. In 2005, KM introduced Open Mind, a collaborative software IF creation and reuse platform patterned on the open source movement. It allowed people to work collaboratively on software development, creating tangible outputs known as TechWorks. ProjectSpace was MindTree's system for project team collaboration and served as the backbone of the Kernel initiative on project management. It supported project execution across a globally distributed team by handling all of a team's knowledge needs. Among its elements were discussion fonnns; wikis; trackers; mailing lists; tools for document management, release manageoient, idea management, and innovation; tools for knowledge capture and software reuse; and spaces for capturing lessons learned. Neuron, MindTree's ideanurturing system, was inuenced by Soota's 2001 observation that \"you never know where a good idea will come from.\" Neuron was an open and collaborative system that covered an idea's entire life cycle. Anyone could contribute an idea on any topic, and anyone could conunent on, rate, link, or add to any idea posted on Neuron as long as it was not earmarked for patenting. Neuron was organized by idea categories, each mapped to a business area. The most senior individual in each business area was designated an \"idea nurturer.\" That role had evolved over tiJne: initially, it meant being an evaluator who accepted or rejected ideas; it currently meant nurturing ideas and exploring ways of rnalcing them feasible. In the process, ideas progressed through four stages: submission, feasibility, development, and deployment. At times, top management guided the process by requesting ideas on a particular theme. One example was the theme of saving energy. In that case, hilindTree received 83 suggestions; collectively, they helped reduce the company' s energy consumption by over 28% in seven months. In total, NlindTree had deployed 24% of the ideas posted on Neuron, resulting in 10 patents. Future systems MindTree was building its nextgeneration systems with the goal of connecting and linking people through distributed touch points, building on the latest trends in social networking such as tagging, livestreains, and microblogging. One such initiative was a 3-bit\" user profile that would make publicly available all aspects of a person's life at work, including ideas they had posted on Neuron, conununities to which they belonged, discussions in which they had participated, and training sessions that they had attended. IVdindTree believed that this information was already publicly available but in a fragmented form; the proposed system would simply collate and assemble it. However, if employees desired, they could opt out of sharing some of their information. The technology would also be 'r'extranetable,\"r which would allow for seamless involvement of external parties in MindTree's knowledge activities. The Kernel initiative for project management Kernel provided an example of how MindTree used KM systems to support and enable collaboration at work. Muralidharan Loganathan, l'viindTree's Kernel expert, explained: MindTree has long had very good project management practices, but we still did considerable firefighting. There was too much emphasis on process, and not enough on knowledge and experts. We had recurrent problems, such as not getting sufciently detailed specifications when delivering to multiple geographies, where knowledge management could offer solutions. lECI'tther project management problems were how best to reduce people dependency, provide knowledge continuity when individuals changed assignments, and enable customers to collaborate on an ongoing basis throughout the life of a project. The solution was the Kernel initiative. It strove to improve productivity by enabling collaboration within teams; encouraging reuse of software, learning, and expertise; and stimulating systematic innovation. For example, Kernel included a tool called the Knowledge lvlap (KNlap) to address the challenges that teams faced at the inception of a delivery project {see Exhibit ti for a sample Knowledge l'v'Iap). The KMap helped teams identify requirements for a project in terms of needed areas of expertise. It then compelled members to identify sources of knowledge that they could leverage, as well as any gaps between needs and sources. Teams filled the gaps by charting out a timebound action plan. Each map was revised and updated over the life cycle of a project. A manager in the delivery organization described the benefits: The KMap helps me tabulate all the learning needs and puts a structure in place. I can then control the team ranipup and track progress against it, which is critical since the rarnpup has a direct effect on the bottom line. The more people understand the technology used in the project, the business domain the application serves, and the operational envirorunent, the better is your delivery process