1.What is knowledge management? at least 2 definition
2.what the forces are that drive KM?
3.Explain knowledge management systems (KMS), and their role in the organization?
4.What is the difference between the Tacit knowledge versus Explicit knowledge?
All the samples were tested in 5 steps of 10,000 cycles of load, to produce stress levels of 100, 125, 150, 200 and 250 MPa. The samples were loaded starting with a cyclic load of 100 MPa and continued to the next step until failure. These samples were registered as “failures” and the number of cycles was noted. When the sample survived to the 50,000 cycles, it was labeled as “suspended”. The registered timelines of failure vs. suspension for CFS samples and MHS samples shows a higher rate of survival for samples sintered using MHS (Figure 4). ————————————————Figure 4————————————— A simple analysis of the results shows an average number of 39,822 cycles for the samples sintered using CFS, and 41,974 cycles for the samples sintered using MHS. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P= 2.851, 2-samples T test) in this comparison. However, this results does not take into account the larger number of suspensions, distribution or predictive values within both sets of samples. ALTA software was used to analyze the distribution of the two set of samples. This software is designed to calculate models and results of SSALT experiments. Weibull model analysis is more suitable for this type of experiments allowing better predictive values. Weibull models have been used previously in the literature with reliable results [Borba et al. 2013, Balakrishnan et al. 2012, Denning 2012]. ——————————-Table 2————————— Weibull analysis required a recalculation of the distribution of the sample sets, as it represents a different predictive model. Based on the presented results, the CFS samples set kept their log-normal distribution, but the MHS sample set has a Gamma distribution (Figure 5). ———————————- Figure 5———————————————- The results showed different results for the reliability of IPS e.max CAD for CFS and MHS samples. MHS samples reliability achieves the 90% reliability around 31,000 cycles while the CFS samples reached the same level of confidence at approximately 29,000 cycles (Figure 6). However, the contour plot of the same analysis shows that MHS samples have a higher probability of 90% survival (area of the graphic) at a higher number of cycle>GET ANSWER