|
|
| (37 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Zoltan}}
| + | <!-- |
| − | {{Csaba}} | + | {{Tellervo}} |
| | | | |
| − | {{Tidy1}} | + | {{Tidy3}} |
| | | | |
| − | {{Clustering stage}}, | + | {{Consolidation stage}}, |
| | + | |
| | + | :''For the IT tool that stores and retrieves knowledge, see [[Knowledge repository]]'' |
| | + | --> |
| | | | |
| | ==Definition== | | ==Definition== |
| − | {{PAGENAME}} is {{ {{PAGENAME}} }}
| + | {{ {{PAGENAME}} }} |
| − | '''Source:''' [[]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Summary==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Description 1 ==
| + | |
| − | An organization may also build subject-specific knowledge bases to collate [[Information|information]] on key topics or processes. Knowledge base is also sometimes used to describe a [[Database|database]] of information. The nuclear industry has a variety of knowledge bases; some are industry wide, such as the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) database and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) database. Knowledge bases of NPP
| + | |
| − | operating organizations include plant procedure systems, system description documents and technical manuals.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Source: ''' [[Planning and Execution of Knowledge Management Assist Missions for Nuclear Organizations]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Description 2 ==
| + | |
| − | A knowledge-based system is a computer system that is programmed to imitate human problem
| + | |
| − | solving by means of artificial intelligence and reference to a database of knowledge on a
| + | |
| − | particular subject. The purpose of a knowledge base system is to:
| + | |
| − | * Allow knowledge to be stored and structured;
| + | |
| − | * Provide an interface with other IT systems that contain knowledge;
| + | |
| − | * Allow users to find and access knowledge;
| + | |
| − | * Carry out decision making and problem solving activities to replicate human thought
| + | |
| − | processes.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In an R&D setting, knowledge base systems can be used to:
| + | |
| − | * Replace human intervention in some decision-making or trouble-shooting processes in a lab environment (examples include intelligent monitoring/fault diagnosis on large-scale equipment or experiments that require constant supervision);
| + | |
| − | * Store/preserve knowledge from experts for reuse at a future date (used in conjunction with the knowledge capture techniques described in para 6.2);
| + | |
| − | * Work faster than human processing for some activities that may require this (examples here include integration with reactor simulator systems to help model rapidly escalating transient situations);
| + | |
| − | * Assimilate information and integrate with other IT systems such as [[Search engine|search engines]], document/content management systems, portals and social networking systems as described in Section 6.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Some examples of knowledge base systems are given below, together with the links to the
| + | |
| − | relevant internet sites:
| + | |
| − | * True knowledge (www.trueknowledge.com). An answer engine capable of answering questions put to it on any topic;
| + | |
| − | * Solvatio (www.iisy.de). A diagnostic tool, which combines case based reasoning and rules based reasoning together with a self-learning capability;
| + | |
| − | * Novo (www.novosolutions.com). Help Desk Software, Knowledge Base Software & Service Desk Software Solutions.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Source:'''
| + | |
| − | [[Knowledge Management for Nuclear Research and Development Organizations]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Description 3 ==
| + | |
| − | === Contemporary operational knowledge ===
| + | |
| − | Many Member States can call on around 50 years of operational [[Radioactive waste management|radioactive waste management]] experience. Some of this experience will be associated with the pre-disposal stages, particularly the treatment and conditioning of [[Radioactive waste|radioactive waste]]. There is less global experience of the earlier stages (for example, segregation, reuse and recycling) and later stages of predisposal such as packaging — particularly the package for [[Waste disposal|disposal]] of spent fuel. There is much more experience of the near surface disposal of low activity radioactive wastes whereas virtually no long term experience of geological disposal of higher activity waste.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The need to establish a culture of knowledge [[Creation|creation]], [[Sharing|sharing]] and [[Transfer|transfer]] has already been argued, being vital for the successful and safe long term management of radioactive waste. This is particularly important if we should wish to develop strategies for the safe disposal of radioactive waste. Where a disposal facility programme has reached the stage of identifying a suitable host environment, it is natural that efforts be made to [[Learning|learn]] from programmes in other countries with similar strategies.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Knowledge [[Sharing|sharing]] and [[Dissemination|dissemination]] is a major benefit of an effective knowledge management system, and this can be enhanced by ensuring, as far as possible, that it is not limited by national borders, regulators or implementing organizations. The IAEA has a technology dissemination programme under its Centres of Excellence in geological disposal framework (URF Network) and low level waste disposal (DISPONET) [15] to share the experience gained in advanced national programmes with those that are at earlier stages. This type of ‘cross-border’ sharing is an important aspect of global nuclear knowledge management. International nuclear knowledge management may be regarded as an extension of the national system, so it is the latter (particularly in relation to geological disposal systems) which is the focus of this section.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | However, despite limited [[Operating experience|operating experience]], significant progress has been made in developing the fundamental scientific understanding needed to support disposal facility siting and in the range of innovative technologies required to support the subsequent stages of geological disposal. This includes the understanding of processes that will determine the effectiveness of natural and engineered barriers employed to isolate waste from the environment over the long term. Methods for site-characterization, and approaches to the quantitative evaluation of the ways in which the barriers are likely to contribute to safety are at such an advanced stage in some Member States that their programmes are nearing the first phases of pre-construction licensing.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | There is a good level of understanding on what specific investigations are needed at candidate sites and how these investigations can be carried out. There is also increasing experience with practical aspects of underground engineering and other aspects of disposal facility implementation. Much of the technology needed for constructing and operating a geological disposal facility is at a level of maturity that it can be deployed. This is backed up by the experience gained worldwide from underground research laboratories (URL) and, in several countries, in existing underground facilities for disposal of radioactive waste.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | At the time this report was published, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is the only operating geological disposal facility for higher activity radioactive wastes. However, there are geological disposal facilities for low level wastes, albeit at shallower depths in Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic and Romania. Germany, Hungary and Republic of Korea are also nearing its completion of such facilities for LLW. Finally, there is a facility in a salt formation in Germany, awaiting final closure.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Because knowledge changes and evolves over time the basis of previous decisions needs to be revisited. In some cases, a review may conclude that it is necessary to reverse a decision. For example, the basis for deciding, in some Member States, to reprocess some bituminous waste forms is now considered unwise, in terms of their disposability, due to the potential for exothermic reactions. Hence, the safety of existing disposal facilities shall be assessed periodically until termination of the licence. In the event that any requirements are not met, measures shall be put in place to upgrade the safety of the facility, economic and social factors being taken into account. Moreover, the development of disposal facilities that incorporate provisions in design or operation to facilitate reversibility, including retrievability, is considered in several national programmes for waste management.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | With a limited [[Knowledge|knowledge]] and experience base, it is prudent to document the technical bases of major decisions so that when more is known, these decisions can either be corroborated or changed as may be needed. The spectre of new knowledge calling into question current processes or plans is real enough to warrant a cautious, stepwise approach to implementing a disposal facility programme. Not precluding the possibility of reversing a step would be prudent in considering design and operations concepts.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Examples of changes in understanding are useful in illustrating why anticipating future needs may be an issue. Current understanding has shown that early work on developing models of likely disposal system behaviour at the conceptual level missed some processes that were wrongly regarded at the time as being unimportant. Research has generally shown the potential impacts of some of these underestimated processes are not likely to be substantial, but the point is that the role of a given process in a disposal system needs to be re-evaluated when continuing scientific inquiry shows the basis for a previous judgment to have been wrong to some extent.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Part of knowledge management ought to include a programme for continuing scientific enquiries that will challenge or corroborate key aspects of the overall case for disposal facility safety. [[Continuous improvement]] of understanding is the goal, hopefully leading to improved safety and efficiency. Knowledge management is not to be used as a process for defending the status quo.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Not only is [[Scientific knowledge|scientific knowledge]] and technology going to change in the future, but there is a very high likelihood that there will be changes in the nuclear fuel cycle over the next decades that will produce new waste forms with potentially very different properties than current waste forms. This alone is a cause for reconsidering past decisions, especially regarding design and even regarding the necessary time a geological disposal facility system needs to provide isolation. There are efforts underway to begin exploring the likely impacts of future nuclear fuel cycles on waste management in general and on repositories in particular [16]. Decisions may be made during the operational phases of a disposal facility to make changes in design, layout and in the requirement on systems for sealing at final closure.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | === Future operational knowledge ===
| + | |
| − | Creating and managing the knowledge assets necessary for the safe management of radioactive waste must be a planned activity that is harmonized with all other activities. In other words, knowledge is continuously created, insofar as insight, experience and skills evolve day by day. Knowledge is not just created when a technical report is published. To ensure newly acquired insight, experience and skills can be properly exploited, those responsible for radioactive waste management need to know the extent, source and potential. This requires a degree of coordination and control, which in turn means planning.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Radioactive waste management planners should integrate knowledge requirements into their programmes: when will unique or critical knowledge be created? What needs to be done to capture knowledge during a one-off piece of research? How will that knowledge be articulated? How must the knowledge be documented? Can it be documented in a way that makes it easier to share or transfer?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The experience gained through operating waste management facilities now and in the future, is by definition, knowledge. Programmes must be put in place to capture this knowledge, where possible, or share and transfer it by the most appropriate and efficient means.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | '''Source:''' [[Knowledge management for radioactive waste management organisations ]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == References ==
| + | |
| − | [1]
| + | |
| − | ==Related articles==
| + | |
| − | [[Data]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Database]]
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | [[Information]]
| + | ==Synonyms== |
| | + | Knowledge repository |
| | | | |
| − | [[Knowledge]]
| |
| | | | |
| − | [[Category:Tools]] | + | [[Category:Storage]] |
| − | [[Category:Information management]]
| + | |
1) the knowledge available to an organization 2) the knowledge available in a specific knowledge domain 3) a technology used to store complex structured and unstructured information used by a computer system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_base Wikipedia)
