Managing the KM Trade-Off: Knowledge Centralization
versus Distribution 1
Matteo Bonifacio
(Department of Information Technology, University of Trento, Italy
bonifacio@dit.unitn.it)
Pierfranco Camussone
(Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italy
pierfranco.camussone@economia.unitn.it)
Chiara Zini
(Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italy
czini@economia.unitn.it)
Abstract: KM is more an archipelago of theories and practices rather than a monolithic approach. We propose a conceptual map that organizes some major approaches to KM according to their assumptions on the nature of knowledge. The paper introduces the two major views on knowledge –objectivist, subjectivist - and explodes each of them into two major approaches to KM: knowledge as a market, and knowledge as intellectual capital (the objectivistic perspective); knowledge as mental models, and knowledge as practice (the subjectivist perspective). We argue that the dichotomy between objective and subjective approaches is intrinsic to KM within complex organizations, as each side of the dichotomy responds to different, and often conflicting, needs: on the one hand, the need to maximize the value of knowledge through its replication; on the other hand, the need to keep knowledge appropriate to an increasingly complex and changing environment. Moreover, as a proposal for a deeper discussion, such trade-off will be suggested as the origin of other relevant KM related trade-offs that will be listed. Managing these trade-offs will be proposed as a main challenge of KM.
Keywords : Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Markets, Mental Models, Communities of Practice, Retrospective Rationality, Bounded Rationality, Constructivism, Organizational Trade-offs. Categories: A.0, A.1, H.1.0, H.1.1
1 Introduction
It is quite evident that Knowledge Management (KM) today is more an archipelago of loosely connected and often contradictory theories and practices, rather than a coherent framework to support organizations in managing their knowledge. Moreover, it is clear that every approach is rooted within often implicit (but recognizable) epistemological assumptions about the very nature of knowledge. Such 1 A short version of this article was presented at the I’KNOW '03 (Graz, Austria, July 2-4, 2003).
Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 10, no. 3 (2004), 162-175submitted: 30/1/04, accepted: 27/2/04, appeared: 28/3/04 ? J.UCS
an epistemological reading of the different KM approaches, although well rooted in the KM literature (see for example [Nonaka 95] and [Drucker 94]), is obviously a major one, if we consider that KM aims at managing a resource whose nature has being debated for long and that is still, perhaps more than ever, object of a strong philosophical, cultural, and social debate. As we will suggest, such debate has implications that go far beyond a mere philosophical reading. In fact, different epistemological assumptions lead to very different answers on how knowledge and learning must be organized, and on what is the role of management and technology. Moreover the exploration of the relationship between the very nature of knowledge and its organization, can provide not just a lens in order to explain the coexistence of heterogeneous approaches to KM. It also represents a chance to discover a type of issue which is particularly relevant to managers that have to make decisions; it hides a trade-off between two very valuable opportunities that implicate very undesired consequences. In particular, we claim that each epistemological view and KM approach can be considered as an “archetype” that responds to different, and often conflicting, needs. On the one hand, the need to maximize the value of knowledge through its replication leads to objectification-codification, whereas, on the other hand, the need to keep knowledge appropriate to an increasingly complex and changing environment leads to subjectification-contextualization. From a managerial stand point, this phenomenon should be red as a “good new”: KM is more likely to be considered as a challenging managerial discipline since it deals with the capacity to choose, balance, compromise, and find an equilibrium between conflicting but valuable issues.
2 Objectivist Approach: knowledge as content
A first macro-approach to KM, which we call the rational objectivistic approach, has its organizational roots in the theory of rational decision making. In its “classic” version, this theory sees knowledge as an objective, non-problematic resource, whose availability and transparency is taken for granted. Later versions of the theory, inspired by Simon’s work on bounded [Simon 72] and procedural [Simon 76] rationality, made clear that human beings have a limited capacity of elaborating information, that acquiring information costs money, and thus the information available when making a decisions is necessarily limited. In both versions, however, knowledge is viewed as an “object” or content that can be stored and used in a non problematic way, independently from subjectivity of producers and consumers.
Two are the major KM views that can derive from the objectivist-rationalistic perspective: the “knowledge as a market” approach, and the “knowledge as intellectual capital” approach.
2.1 Knowledge as a market
In analogy to what was proposed by [Hayek 48], computational and cognitive boundaries lead people to manage knowledge through markets. Market mechanisms, in fact, are able to bring to each actor the needed piece of information in the right moment. Prices are proposed as an example of mechanism that provides decision makers with enough (even though not complete) information in order to take rational 163
Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
164Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
decisions. For example, a shock in oil supply means, for some reason, that oil becomes more scarce; from the perspective of a market buyer, higher prices are the informative vehicle that instantaneously provides him with the needed quantity of information. Through the market organizational form, the whole knowledge can be managed by the system without assuming that one needs to know everything.
Such perspective is reflected in all those theories of KM that see a KM systems as a sort of knowledge market (see e.g. [Davenport 00]), populated by producers/ manufacturers, intermediaries and consumers of knowledge. The goal of a KM system is therefore that of bringing down the barriers which prevent such a market from becoming efficient. This means that one has to increase the completeness of information (making explicit the real value of knowledge), to overcome the information asymmetries (some have better access to knowledge than others), and to avoid localisms (knowledge can be shared across remote businesses).
The need to overcome or push forward the limits of rationality has emphasized the role of those information and communication technologies that can be used to strengthen and extend the human cognitive capabilities. [Borghoff 99] shows that organizations use technology to provide its members with tools that allow them to increase the power to map, codify and transfer knowledge: thus, for example, information retrieval and text mining tools are used to facilitate the acquisition of new information from large bodies of documents, data mining tools are used to extract regular patterns from large collections of data, knowledge repositories and knowledge bases are used to expand the memory capacity, ontology and representation languages are used to improve the codification of information, document management and publishing technologies are proposed to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge.
2.2 Knowledge as Intellectual Capital
From another perspective, bounded rationality leads to the need of considering knowledge for the purpose of decision making in terms of local, rather than global, optimality. Since the acquisition of information has a cost that could be higher than the marginal outcome of its use, people need to rely on working heuristics and procedures when making decisions. In this sense, managing knowledge for decisions means reusing those solutions that worked in the past, even though the reasons why they work are not always clear, and as long as the value of each reuse is lower than the cost of acquiring additional information.
Such a perspective seems to be collected by those approaches to KM that view knowledge as an asset that needs to be reused by the organization. In particular, the school of intellectual capital [Stewart 97]; [Sveiby 00] argues that people, through their activity, generate working solutions that are embedded, for example, in social relationships with customers and partners, procedures on how things must be done, and structures that tell to people who can do what. The simple production of such a knowledge has already generated a cost, visible in the organization balance statement. On the other hand, it still contains a potential value given by its reuse in similar situations. This intangible value –the intangible capital- is not visible in the organization’s formal accounting documents, but is recognizable by the difference between the value of the tangible assets, and the market value of an organization. In order to exploit the value of the organizations’ intangibles, knowledge must be codified, spread and reused across the entire organization.
From an IT perspective, this view emphasizes the role of knowledge bases that become the driving metaphor of knowledge as a resource that must be codified and reused in order to exploit its value. Moreover, since the IT revolution dramatically decreased the variable cost of information communication, it opened the opportunity to maximize the rate of information replication. In other words, the more the cost of communicating information decreases, the more there is an incentive to replicate information to each potential user that, through its use, can generate some value. 3 Subjective Approach: knowledge as context
A second macro-approach to KM, which we call knowledge as context, stresses the subjective nature of knowledge and its strong dependency on a social and a cognitive dimension. In general, the epistemological focus is shifted from a notion of knowledge as general and abstract content, to those interpretative “premises” within which a “piece” of content gets a meaning, this way becoming knowledge. In this sense, knowledge is described as a double faced matter, made of content –such as traditional scientific statements- within an appropriate context – such as theories. In general, in this epistemological view the contextual layer is viewed as an intrinsically subjective construct that cannot be separated by people as an external matter. For example, a context is not the time and place where an event occurs, or the domain in which a statement is to be placed. Rather, it is a perspective through which events and statements are red, a lens that may change from person to person, from community to community. In this sense, the difference between content and context is not quantitative but qualitative; it is not an additional layer of facts that needs to be considered when interpreting some content, but rather an internal momentum through which facts, from the actor’s perspective, gain sense [Giunchglia 00].
The contextual nature of knowledge has been described according to two main perspectives. The first one underlines the cognitive nature of interpretation, and views knowledge as a phenomenon that manifests itself mainly in terms of mental constructs (knowledge as mental models). The second underlines the social nature of interpretation and represents knowledge as a phenomenon that manifests mainly in terms of social relationships (knowledge as a practice).
3.1 Knowledge as mental models
The cognitive approach has its roots in the phenomenological-cognitive theory of organizations. These theories stress that the problem of rationality does not lie in the limited quantity of available information, but rather in the fact that the meaning of a piece of information changes according to the actor’s goals and beliefs. Information is interpreted, and not simply received. The problem of knowledge is thus shifted from uncertainty to ambiguity, that is, from the problem of deciding when there is a lack of information (Simon) to the problem of deciding when information is abundant and alternative interpretations are available [Zack 99], [Weick 95]. Such a perspective, brought to its organizational consequences by [March 91a], underlines how people and organizations act on the basis of their roles and identities, and not on the basis of prospectively assessed goals. Rather on the contrary, goals are defined ex-post, once an action has been executed and some new situation has been achieved. Quoting 165
Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
166Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
March [March 91a], organizations are seen as “garbage cans”, that is to say, collections of existing solutions seeking for new problems. In this sense, knowledge is viewed as a tool to celebrate and justify decisions, rather than a matter that describes a world in order to take a correct action.
March’s critic opens the way to the constructivist approach, proposed by [Daft and Weick 84], who moves the attention from interpretation to sense making processes. While the former assumes that there is an external world that needs to be interpreted through cognitive constructs, the latter stresses that through interpretation we act on the world and we modify it. The intrinsic ambiguity of an environment is now viewed as an opportunity to interpret a situation from a point of view and to change the world accordingly. As a consequence, from a description of a given environment, knowledge becomes the tool both to retrospectively justify and prospectively construct reality (enactment).
As it is well described in [Zack 99], a KM system must allow the emergence of those interpretation schemas and mental models that structure the way in which management perceives reality and, consequently, proceeds to action. The goal of such a process is to explicit the subjective nature of the current beliefs and business theories, to modify these models and thus act in a different way, and to encourage the communication and sharing not only of information, but also of those mental models underlying the interpretation of information. These KM solutions are characterized, on the one hand by a higher complexity and “volatility” of the issues they deal with (e.g. the mental models, the vision) and, on the other hand, by a stronger impact on traditional organizational structures. For these reasons, these solutions become often the basis of methodologies (which have become fashionable in the 90s), which aim at making the top management aware of new methods of business leadership based on recommendations mainly focused on reasoning about, and exploiting mental models [Senge 90] [Argyris 02] 2
3.2 Knowledge as practice
The other subjective approach to organizational knowledge, which we call the pragmatic approach, has its roots in the social theories of organizational learning, namely in the study of organizational cultures and the influence of social factors (such as the feeling of belonging to something, trust, and identity) on organizational dynamics [Mead 34], [Vygotsky 78], [Latour 87]. These studies, in a first phase, operated within the conception of sociality as a constraint to be taken into account in 2An interesting view that brings the cognitivist-subjective approach to its extreme is proposed by [Vopel 03]. Basically, since knowledge is not a means to describe reality but rather a tool to reduce decisional ambiguity and celebrate actions, it is no longer relevant to have the “right” knowledge. What is relevant is to act, and to have some “knowledge” able to drive people’s confidence on the goodness of a decision. In KM terms, since an ambiguous reality is not describable at all, this view leads to a solution similar to the one proposed by the intellectual capital approach, in which “centralization and control of the knowledge base(s)” and the building of “a single perspective” is a good KM strategy. But the reason is quite different; centralization becomes a means to merely legitimate actions; no matter what knowledge base or perspective is adopted.
the designing and development of rational organizations (as in the case of the so-called human relations schools – see e.g. [Mayo 34]). Here, learning is viewed as information acquisition, and sociality as a dimension that needs to be managed in order to improve traditional learning. However, a radically alternative approach emerged which envisions sociality as an intrinsic factor that determines the very nature of organizational learning tout-court. The strong link between knowledge and sociality was brought forward by several authors (see, e.g. [Suchman 87], [Brown 91],
[Clancey 92], [Lave 90]), and is based on the idea that, in its essence, knowledge has a practical nature. In other words, knowledge, far from being an abstract matter based on a factual representation of reality, is closely linked to the context of social practices which are created, generated, and reshaped within a certain community. It is only by knowing the group dynamics and habits, that the outspoken and traditional knowledge acquires significance. Therefore learning, viewed as a generative process of creating a practice, is carried out first of all through active participation (engagement), and then internalized and transmitted through the practices of a community.
Such view generated two quite different approaches to KM. A first one, particularly famous thanks to the work of [Nonaka 95], brought the attention of companies to the concept of implicit knowledge: knowledge created by individual workers, and therefore strongly dependent on the personal experience of its producers, can become of great value to the company through a process of explicitation, refinement and crystallization. This way, drawing a conclusion similar to those that belong to the objectivistic tradition, knowledge can be transformed into a general and abstract object, that can then be applied and re-used in contexts, which are different from the original one.
The second view gave a more fundamental role to subjectivity and sociality stressing the collective, rather than the individual, dimension of knowledge creation
[Wenger 98]. People participate to informal communities in which they learn through practice, and generate knowledge by contributing to the update and modification of these practices. Therefore, a KM system cannot aim only at making explicit the implicit knowledge of individuals, but rather at facilitating the creation and social dissemination of practical knowledge. This happens by encouraging the creation and vitality of the Web of informal relationships, which feeds the system of communities of practice also through the use of open, weakly structured and mainly collaborative technologies (like groupware systems), capable of supporting the creation of traditional, or even virtual communities.3 3 Compared to Nonaka’s approach, communities of practice had a greater impact on concrete KM solutions and techniques since the former proposes a very costly process of knowledge exploitation, based on putting a manager side by side with workers. On the other hand, a common managerial interpretation of the community-based approach, supports a vision in which knowledge workers, independently from the organizational will or desire, participate to the processes of exploitation simply by taking part in the life of their community.
167
Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
168Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
4 Managing KM Trade-offs
The heterogeneity that characterizes the different KM approaches here presented, rather than deriving from alternative ideological views on knowledge, represent the expressions of a “natural”, unsaid, and typically unintentional, debate around the dualistic nature of knowledge that happens within organizations. In other words, we believe that the “ontological dualism” between subjectivity and objectivity [Giddens 84] is not simply a matter of debate on the foundations of KM, but a real contradiction afflicting researchers and practitioners whose task is to manage knowledge within complex firms. In particular this ontological dualism manifests itself in terms of a very concrete trade-off between two opposite needs. On the one hand, managers need to foster value and control, and try to achieve the latter through knowledge standardization and the former through knowledge replication. Such a need is legitimated by an objectivist approach to KM, and drives actions oriented towards the creation of centralized repositories and efficient communication networks. On the other hand, managers face the need, expressed by organizational communities, to keep knowledge appropriate to context specific business environments. Such a need is legitimated by a subjectivist approach to KM, and drives actions oriented towards the enablement of informal networks, and the recognition of the value generated by semantic specialization and differentiation. The ontological dualism becomes a trade-off if we consider how the two tendencies generate conflicting side effects: while standardization tends to reduce appropriateness, contextualization tends to reduce replicability. In fact, as underlined elsewhere [Bonifacio 02], in complex environments standard knowledge tends to become useless since too general to be applied and generate value. On the other hand, highly contextual distributed “knowledges” tend to be “solipsistically” owned by communities and organizations in order to merely justify their actions; each “knowledge” becomes unable both to represent some reality and to be communicated to another community. As a consequence, complex firms that face heterogeneous environmental conditions, such as PSFs [Bonifacio 00], are likely to promote, more or less intentionally, both types of approaches as appropriate answers to the need/opportunity to crystallize knowledge through centralization (in stable or controllable environments), and the need/opportunity to mobilize it through distribution (in uncontrolled and dynamic settings). Moreover we propose that this fundamental trade-off is the basis of some other relevant ones that concretely impact on well known and traditional organizational issues.
4.1 Innovation versus improvement
Two typical ways to describe organizational learning are radical innovation and continuous improvement [Hamel 01], [Boland 95], [Brown 91]. Such processes are seemingly related to the main approaches to KM here proposed. In fact, viewing knowledge as content implies, as said, an objectivistic reading of the environment that can be increasingly “known” through deeper observation and analysis. From this perspective, knowing is an incremental process that aims at refining our representation of the world which is addressed towards precision and truth. Such refinement is achieved inductively through the formulation of better theories and, deductively, through their verification by means of more precise experiments. As a
consequence, according to a behavioural metaphor [Weick 91], organizational learning manifests as continuous improvement, that is, a reactive trial and error process of adjustment of organizational behaviours to changing environmental conditions.
On the other hand, knowledge as context implies a broader view of organizational learning that resembles the way in which Kuhn [Kuhn 70] described the paradigmatic and discontinuous evolution of scientific knowledge. From this perspective, a knowledge is seen as one of the “plausible” interpretations of the world rather than a “draft” version of an increasingly refined truth. People can see the environment from different perspective and, moreover, they can construct different realities through social negotiation [Berger 66]. As a consequence, the evolution of a knowledge can be subject to “discontinuities” and not only to “incrementality”; that is, social entities can negotiate radically new theories of the world that lead and, according to these, generate alternative and even conflicting interpretations of the same facts. Moreover, social actors can “implement” such views in the world through manipulation and creation of consensus, or, as said by Weick [Weick 95], enact different “realities”. In this sense, organizational learning can be seen as innovation, that is, the generation of alternative views of both the business and the organization itself, which drives actions that are able to enable business and organizational configurations in which such views are, ex post, true.4 Such dualism is the basis of other important ones such as specialization versus despecialization. In fact, as proposed by James March [March 91b], while incremental learning are sustained by specialization trends (that March calls exploitation), discontinuous forms of learning are sustain by despecialization (that March calls exploration). Moreover, such dualism is the basis of the other famous one of efficiency versus efficacy. In fact, while exploitation of current capabilities leads to more efficient solutions (being able do the same things with less resources), exploration of new capabilities leads to new solutions (do new things). Of course, within an unstable environment efficiency could be ineffective, since leading to improve useless solutions, while in a stable one efficacy could lead to un efficient behaviours, since exploring alternative answers that are not required by environmental dynamics.
4.2 The source of knowledge: theory versus practice
An important debate evolves around the source of knowledge, that is, whether knowledge originates from theoretical or practical reasoning [Brown 00]. In the former case, primacy is attributed to logical reasoning and, moreover, to those mental processes that occur in the head of knowledge workers. In the latter case, primacy is attributed to those relationship that occur among social actors since knowledge is embedded in the various ways in which we relate to each other. The trade off manifests if we consider how theoretical reasoning aims at defining abstract (from specific contexts) and general (applicable in different contexts) knowledge objects 4 Such view of innovation as social construction is sustained by a series of studies that, through the concept of network externalities [Liebowitz 94], [Katz 85], show how famous innovations can be better described as enactment of favorable business environments, rather than proper understanding of given business environments [Arthur 89], [David 85].
169
Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
170Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
while practical reasoning aims at defining “knowledges” that are rooted in contextual circumstances. On the other hand, the more we pursue theoretical formulations the more we risk to generate logically correct but useless statements. Moreover, the more we keep our solutions as practical, the more these are unable to sustain predictions about alternative applicative domains. As a corollary, such trade-off inspires well known limitations of current KM approaches: while those that are inspired by an objectivistic metaphor are proposed as prescriptive theories (they state what should be done normatively in order to sustain organizational knowledge), those that are inspired by subjectivistic metaphors tend to be merely descriptive (they tell us how to study a practice but not how to judge it as good or bad). On the contrary, while objectivistic approaches manifest an evident weak capacity to describe how “things really work”, subjectivistic ones are quite effective in sustaining a deep understanding of organizational dynamics. As a matter of fact, as many KM practitioners know, while Davenport or Sveiby’s like approaches are more easy to sell to companies, CoP and Mental Models are much more able to explain learning dynamics.
4.3 The power of knowledge: owning content versus context
An important corollary of the two main approaches to KM is the definition of power. Objectivistic approaches tend to view power as the capacity of people to own content, that is, to prevent other people from accessing relevant pieces of knowledge if they aren’t disposed to pay some form of value in order to acquire it [Davenport 00], [Stewart 97]. On the other hand, subjectivistic approaches lead to a notion of power embedded in the capacity to own a context, that is, the capacity prevent people from accessing either a social environment (CoP), or an interpretative frame (mental models) in which content becomes meaningful [Wenger 98]. In the latter case, power lies in the capacity to interpret facts according to a perspective or identity, while in the former resides in the quantity to store and recall relevant pieces of content. In particular, the market metaphor views power as the capacity to generate information asymmetries and the intellectual capital as the capacity to standardize more content. On the other hand, the CoP approach views power as the capacity to prevent people from accessing the social practice reducing transparency, and the mental models as the capacity of people to share content but not the ability to interpret it.
4.4 The role of technology: problem versus solution
The two different views on the knowledge provide a quite different angle to read the role of technology. On the one hand, knowledge as content reads technology as a neutral medium that vehicles knowledge from producers to consumers. Technology is evaluated in quantitative terms as, for example, media richness [Daft 86], and storing or processing capacity. From this perspective, technological architectures are to be incrementally evaluated on the base of their capacity to store, process, and richly represent knowledge objects while managers and designers are seen as independent parties that aim at enabling a better management of knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge as context holds an opposite perspective that views technology as an attempt to provide, and sometimes impose, a context through which content should be interpreted. In fact, a KM technology is seen as a “knowledge” itself that implicitly embeds a perspective on social practices and meaning. That is, technology aims at
structuring both the way in which users should engage in learning practices (CoP perspective), and the reference schema –such as ontologies, taxonomies, concept maps- through which content should be interpreted (mental models) [Bowker 00]. From this perspective, technology adoption is seen as a negotiation process among different groups of interest (at least, as said by Orlikowski [Orlikowski 91a; 91b] designers, users, and managers) that aims at preserving and imposing alternative interpretations of the working environment. Moreover, managers aim at controlling knowledge through processes and schemas inspired by standardization and centralization, users aim at preserving opaqueness and locality of work practices, while designers aim at implementing solutions that are conceptually appealing according to their community. In such sense, technology, rather than a medium, is a message.
4.5 The role of managers: enablers versus controller
Strongly related to the above perspective, is the notion of management that emerges if considering knowledge as either content or context. In the former sense, the management of knowledge can and should be focused on its traditional function, that is control. Here, managers divide, through a top down process, the cognitive labour according to cognitive loads and roles [Rullani 90]. Moreover, they aim at “extracting” knowledge from people through standardization processes to transform it into a matter that is independent from its holder. As a consequence, as much as standard labour force and financial capital means that both manual workers and industrial assets can be substituted, than standard cognitive labour means that knowledge workers can be substituted as well [Drucker 94]. Such goal, is well represented by Nonaka’s idea of making knowledge explicit, by Stweart with the idea of transforming human capital into structural capital, and with the one proposed by Davenport of knowledge codification. Moreover, these views lead to hierarchical forms of cognitive division of labour such as the Nonaka’s Middle-Up-Down Management [Nonaka 95], and the Devanport’s [Davenport 00] and Stewart [Stewart 97] classic forms based on Chief Knowledge Officers, Knowledge Managers, and Knowledge workers. From this perspective, knowledge is a value that can be controlled by managers.
On the other side, knowledge as context views managers as enablers that can create an environment favourable to knowledge, but they cannot control or appropriate its value. Such impossibility is due to the “sticky” nature of knowledge
[Brown 00] whose value is intrinsically embedded in social practices and interpretative schemas. As a consequence, aiming at collecting content is a non sense since any content avulse from practical and mental context has no meaning. Moreover, managers have to reposition themselves as community facilitators and, as clearly proposed by Stewart [Stewart 97], renounce to the goal of controlling the uncontrollable; that is, knowledge flows naturally cross organizational boundaries since communities are transversal by definition. Rather, managers should concentrate on moving “the heart” of a community within the company so that the net exchange of knowledge (knowledge that goes in minus the one that goes out) is positive. To do so, rather than controlling intellectual property with non disclosure agreements or patents, they should invest in strategic communities providing resources and space for interaction.
171
Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
172Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
5 Conclusion
Traditionally KM initiatives are presented as win win solutions, that is, they are proposed as systems and organizational models that, if implemented, expand the capacity of the firm to generate value and, moreover, such value is distributed among every steak holder. They are neutral, in the broader sense that these systems do not fundamentally influence the existing equilibria if not in terms of requiring cultural change or a more developed knowledge sharing attitude. In short, they’re presented just as “good news”. Of course, like every evolution that impacts on the firm’s core processes, “good news” come always with “bad news”. As we showed, pushing too much the value of replicability generates meaningless solutions, focusing too much on content implies a lack of context, promoting improvement, specialization, and efficiency, weaknesses the capacity to generate effective innovation. Moreover, adopting normative and theoretic approaches to KM system design leads to solutions that are unable to properly represent work practices, while technologies are “messages” whose successful implementation is crucially rooted in the negotiation among managers, users and designers. Finally, if power lies in the capacity not only to own content but also context, KM systems should focus less on quantitative performance parameters (such as, storing capacity) and more on qualitative ones such as: to what extent people are disposed to share their interpretative schemas? Are social practices transparent so that new comers are legitimated to learn? Is technology an instrument that reduce or increase the opacity of meaning ?
Of course such bad news are good news for managers. In fact, wherever there are decision to be taken than there’s managerial work to be done. In managerial terms, in fact, our thesis entails that the role of knowledge managers should be mainly focused on balancing the KM related trade-offs; in this sense, a good knowledge manager must be able to tune centralization vs distribution dynamics on the basis of a pragmatic evaluation of environmental conditions, privileging the former in stable conditions, and the latter in turbulent settings. In particular, he/she should balance innovation issues versus improvement, efficiency versus efficacy, specialization versus despecialization, replicability of solutions versus appropriateness, normative approaches to organizational design versus more descriptive ones, technologies as mediums versus technologies as messages, power as content versus power as context. That is, managers should heavily reposition KM as a practice that can lead towards two very different organizational models which imply a main trade-off that goes directly at the very heart of the managerial function. In fact, while the objectivist view leads to centralized forms of organization, the subjectivistic one leads to distributed forms. In trade-off terms, centralization could ensure control but at the risk of controlling a useless and maladaptive organization; on the other hand, distribution could sustain more innovative and flexible capacities, while implying a loss in power and control. From the latter perspective, managers that so often underline the importance of the subjective factor, should be aware that they’re going in the direction of criticizing their own traditional position in favour of a new distributed managerial paradigm.
References
[Argyris 02] Argyris, C., Schoen, D.A.: “Organisational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice”; Addison-Wesley, 2002.
[Arthur 89] Arthur W.B.: “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events”; The Economic Journal, Vol. 99, 1989.
[Berger 66] Berger, P. and Luckman, T.: “The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge”; Anchor Books, 1966.
[Bonifacio 00] Bonifacio, M., Bouquet P. and Manzardo, A.: “A Distributed Intelligence Paradigm for Knowledge Management”; AAAI-2000 Spring Symposium on “Bringing Knowledge to Business Processes”, March 2000 (Stanford, CA).
[Bonifacio 02] Bonifacio, M., Bouquet, P., Traverso, P.: “Enabling Distributed Knowledge Management”; Managerial and Technological Implications, Novatica and Informatik/Informatique, v. III (1), 2002.
[Boland 95] Boland, J.R., Tenkasi, R.V.: “Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing”; Organization Science, 6, 4 (July-August) 1995.
[Borghoff 99] Borghoff, U.M., Pareschi, R.: “Information Technology for KM. Springer”; Berlin, 1999.
[Bowker 00] Bowker, G., Leigh Star S.: “Sorting Things Out: Classification and its consequences”; Cambridge, MIT press, 2000.
[Brown 00] Brown, J.S., Duguid, P.: “Knowledge and Organization. A Social Practice Perspective”; Organization Science, July 2000.
[Brown 91] Brown, J.S., Duguid, P.: “Organisational Learning and Communities-of-Practice : Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation”; Organisation Science, 2(1), 1991.
[Clancey 92] Clancey, W.J.: “Representations of knowing: In defense of cognitive apprenticeship”; Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 3(2),139-168, 1992.
[Daft 86] Daft, R.L., Lengel, R.H.: “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design”; Management Science, 32, 5 (May) 554-571, 1986.
[Daft and Weick 84] Daft, R. L. and Weick, K. E.: "Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems"; Academy of Management Review, 9 (2), pp. 284-295.
[David 85] David, P.: “Clio and the Economics of QUERTY”; American Economic Review, 75, 1985.
[Davenport 00] Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L.: “Working Knowledge”; Harvard Business School Press, 2000.
[Drucker 94] Drucker, P.: “The Post Capitalistic Society”; Cambridge University Press, 1994.
[Giddens 84] Giddens, A.: “The Constitution of Society: outline of the theory of structuration”; Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
[Giunchiglia 00] Giunchiglia, F., Ghiaini, C.: “Local Models Semantics”; Artificial Intelligence, 2000.
[Hayek 48] Hayek, F.A.: “Individualism and Economic Order”; University of Chicago Press, 1948.
173
Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
174Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
[Hamel 01] Hamel, G.: “Revolution vs Evolution: you need both”; Harvard Business Review, May 2001.
[Katz 85] Katz, M., Shapiro, C.: “Network Externalities, Competition and Compatibility”; American Economic Review, Vol. 75, 1985.
[Kuhn 70] Kuhn, T.S.: “The Structure of Scientific Evolutions”; Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970.
[Latour 87] Latour, B.: Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society”; Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press, 1987.
[Lave 90] Lave, J., Wenger, E.: “Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation”; New York, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[Liebowitz 94] Liebowitz, S.J., Margolis, S.E.: “Network Externality: An Uncommon Tragedy”; Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(2), 1994
[March 91a] March, J.G.: “How Decision Happen in Organisations”; in Human-Computer Interaction (vol. 6, pp.95-117), 1991.
[March 91b] March, J.G.: “Explorations and Exploitation in organizational learning”; Organization Science, 2, 1991.
[Mayo 45] Mayo, E.: “The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisation”; Boston, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1945.
[Mead 34] Mead H.G.: “Mind, Self and Society”; Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1934. [Nonaka 95] Nonaka, I., Takeuchi H.: “The knowledge creating company”; Oxford University Press, 1995.
[Orlikowsy 91a] Orlikowsy, W.J.: “The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations”; Organization Science, Vol. 3, 1992.
[Orlikowsy 91b] Orlikowsy, W., Robey, D.: “Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations”; Information Systems Research, 2, 2 (June), 1991.
[Rullani 90] Rullani, E., Di Bernardo, B.: “Il Management e le Macchine”; Il Mulino, 1990. [Senge 90] Senge, P.M.: “The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of Learning Organisations”; Doubleday, New York, 1990.
[Simon 72] Simon, H.A.: “Theories of bounded rationality”; in C.B. McGuire and R. Radner (Eds.), Decision and organisation: A volume in honour of Jacob Marschak (Chap. 8). Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1972.
[Simon 76] Simon, H.A.: “From substantive to procedural rationality”; in S.J. Latsis (Ed.), Method and appraisal in economics (pp. 129-148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
[Stewart 97] Stewart T.A.: “Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations”; Nicholas Brealey, 1997.
[Suchman 87] Suchman, L.A.: “Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication”; Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1987.
[Sveiby 00] Sveiby E.: “Measuring Intangible Assets - An Emerging Standard”; in Morey, Maybury & Thuraisingham (eds) Knowledge Management - Classic and contemporary Works, MIT Press 2000.
[Vopel 03] Vopel O.: “Knowledge as resource and problem: the case of knowledge intensive firms”; Proceedings of the I-Know ‘03 Workshop on Communities of Practice, J.UCS.
[Vygotsky 78] Vygotsky, L.S.: “Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes”; Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
[Weick 95] Weick, K.E.: “Sensemaking in Organizations”; Sage Pubblications, 1995.
[Weick 91] Weick, E.: “The Non Traditional Quality of Organizational Learning”; Organization Science, 2, 1991.
[Wenger 98] Wenger, E.: “Communities of Practice. Learning, Meaning and Identity”; Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[Zack 99] Zack, M. H.: “Managing Organizational Ignorance”; Knowledge Directions 1:36-49, 1999. 175
Bonifacio M., Camussone P., Zini C.: Managing the KM Trade-Off...
第2章 时速160公里动力集中动车组 动力车操作说明 版本：1.0 文件名称 动力车操作说明 共 83 页 第 1 页 日期 2017-05
修改记录 版本号 更改日期 更改的主要原因 更改的章节与内容 1.0 2017-05 初始创建 全部 文件名称 动力车操作说明 共 83 页 第 2 页 日期 2017-05
文件名称 动力车操作说明 共 83 页 第 3 页 日期 2017-05 目 录 1 概述 ............................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 安全相关术语的定义 ......................................................................................................... 5 1.2 有资质的人员 ..................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 重要提示 ............................................................................................................................. 5 1.4 安全原理 ............................................................................................................................. 8 1.4.1 联锁系统...................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.2 紧急制动回路.............................................................................................................. 9 1.4.3 惩罚制动回路............................................................................................................ 10 2 启动和停止操作的位置方案 .................................................................................................. 12 3 启动操作 .................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1 动力车外部的检查 ........................................................................................................... 14 3.2 机械间的准备 ................................................................................................................... 15 3.3 在司机室内的准备 ........................................................................................................... 20 3.4 日常检查 ........................................................................................................................... 27 3.4.1 DK-2制动试验 ............................................................................................................. 27 3.4.2 CAB 制动试验 .............................................................................................................. 34 3.4.3 列供供电检查............................................................................................................ 41 3.4.4 撒砂试验.................................................................................................................... 42 3.4.5 泄漏试验.................................................................................................................... 43 3.4.6 监控系统试验............................................................................................................ 44 3.4.7 回到运用模式............................................................................................................ 44 3.5 修理工作之后的检查 ....................................................................................................... 44 3.5.1 用紧急制动排风阀试验紧急制动............................................................................ 44 3.5.2 使用紧急制动按钮试验紧急制动............................................................................ 45 3.5.3 端部照明.................................................................................................................... 47 3.5.4 车外照明.................................................................................................................... 48 3.6 内部照明 ........................................................................................................................... 48 3.6.1 司机室灯.................................................................................................................... 48 3.6.2 机械间灯.................................................................................................................... 49 3.7 信号设备 ........................................................................................................................... 49 3.7.1 风笛............................................................................................................................ 49 3.8 空调 ................................................................................................................................... 51 4 启动和牵引操作 ...................................................................................................................... 52 4.1 司机控制器 ....................................................................................................................... 52 4.1.1 方向开关.................................................................................................................... 52 4.1.2 牵引/制动手柄 .......................................................................................................... 52 4.1.3 牵引模式.................................................................................................................... 52 4.2 牵引操作 ........................................................................................................................... 53 4.2.1 要求............................................................................................................................ 53 4.2.2 过程. (5) 3
动车组基础知识 第一章动车组基础知识 第一节动车组的特点及组成 动车组是城际和市郊铁路实现小编组、大密度的高效运输工具，以其编组灵活、方便、快捷、安全，可靠、舒适为特点备受世界各国铁路运输和城市轨道交通运输的青睐。 使用动车的比重以日本为最大，占87%；荷兰、英国次之，分别占83%和61%；法国、德国又次之，分别占22%和12%。动车组称得上是铁路旅客运输的生力军。 德国是最早制造和运用动车的国家，制造技术一直领先。1903年7月8日，首先运行了由钢轨供电的动车组，由4节动车和2节拖车编成。同年8月14日，又运行了由接触网供电的动车组，这是世界上第一列由接触网供电的单相交流电动车组。同年10月28日，西门子公司制造的三相交流电动车进行了高速试验，首创时速210.2公里的历史记录。 动车组是在车辆转向架的轮轴上安装动力装置的车辆。一般一节车上一个转向架上装一对，一节车上两个转向架上都装等多种情况。动车组内有动力的车辆称为动车，没有动力的车辆称为拖车。动车组一般用于高速、准高速、城市轨道交通的车辆上。 目前，国外的列车运行速度一般达到200～300km/h光靠机车来拉已经很吃力。所以在每辆车上都装上动力装置是个很有效的解决提速问题的方法。动车组前途比较光明，主学有车辆工程方面的知识和电机方面的相关知识。国内目前比较空缺这方面的人才。 目前动车段建设是客运专线建设组成部分，现在正在建设的动车段有京津城际北京动车段，武广专线武汉动车段、广州动车段、长沙动车运用所、衡阳动车综合维修段，郑西专线西安动车段、郑州动车段，主要是技术支持是德国。 一、动车组的基本特点 我们通常看到的电力机车和内燃机车，其动力装置都集中安装在机车上，在机车后面挂着许多没有动力装置的客车车厢。动车组，亦称多动力单元列车，是铁路列车的一种，特点是动力来源分布在列车各个车辆上的发动机，而不是集中在机车上。动车组的司机驾驶室一般都被大为缩短，放在列车的两端。 动车的技术发展主要表现在功率、速度和舒适性的提高、单位功率重量的降低以及电子技术的应用等方面。动车组今后还将不断发展，特别是世界各国正在发展市郊铁路与地下铁道过轨互通，构成城市高速铁路网，动车组在其中将会起到主力军的作用。 二、动车组的优点 与用机车拖动普通车辆相比，动车组的优点是： 动车组在两端都有驾驶室，列车掉头时无需先把机车在一端脱钩后再移到另一端挂钩，大为加快运转的速度。同时亦减少车务人员的工作及提高安全。 动车组可以容易组合成长短不同的列车。有些地方的动车组会先整成一列，到中途的车站分开成数截，分别开向不同的目的地。 其中动力分散的动车组以下的优点特别明显： 动力效率较高；特别是在斜坡上。动车组车卡的重量放置在各个带动力的车轮上，而不会成为拖在机车后面无用的负重。 因为同样的原因，动车组上的动力轴对路轨黏着力的要求较低，每轴的载重亦较少。因此选用动车组的高速铁路路线，对路线的土木工程及路轨的要求都较为低。 电力动车组因为有较多的电动机，所以再生制动能力良好。对于停站较多的近郊通勤铁路、地下铁路，这优点特别明显。 因为动车组运转快、占地小，行走市郊的通勤铁路很多都是动车组。轻便铁路、地下铁路使用的亦几乎全是动车组。 三、动车组分类
高速动车组动力配置方式 把驱动列车前进的动力集中放在机车头上，还是化整为零地分散到各节车厢上，这是世界上两种不同的高速列车技术。日本首创动力分散方式，法国、德国长期坚持动力集中方式，双方在关键技术上展开竞争，40多年间，经历了多个回合的较量，你追我赶，各显神通，推动了世界高速铁路技术不断发展，走向成熟。 从1960年代动力分散方式的日本0系新干线列车一枝独秀，到1980年代动力集中方式的法国TGV列车占据优势地位，又到1990年代后日本动力分散方式和欧洲动力集中方式并驾齐驱，最后到现今动力分散方式成为世界高速列车技术的发展趋势。 20世纪50年代，日本国民经济经历战败后的复兴，得到了高速发展。作为主要公共交运输方式的铁路，旅客和货物运输量急剧增长，连接东京、名古屋和大阪的日本铁路交通大动脉--东海道线的运输能力日渐显得捉襟见肘了。日本国铁决定增建新线来缓解运输压力最大的东海道线运能不足的问题。当时提出了3种不同方案： 1．已达饱和状态的东海道复线基础上再建一条复线；2．新建一条东海道线新铁路来分流和缓解旧东海道线的运输压力；3．修建一条时速200公里以上的标准轨高速铁路。第三种新干线方案遭到日本国铁大多数人的强烈反对。然而，当时的日本国铁总裁十河信二与总工程师岛秀雄却凭借其过人的魄力与出众的技术眼光，力主新干线方案，并最终获得国会批准。1959年4月20日，日本开始正式修建东海道新干线。1964年10月1日正式通车，0系“光号”列车在高速铁路上达到创纪录的210公里的时速。新干线开通后，很快便以高速、正点、安全、大运量、全天候的独特优势，得到日本国民的广泛欢迎，大量的客流涌向新干线，乘飞机的旅客大减，最终竟迫使东京至名古屋的航班停运。新干线不仅创造了良好的经济效益，还带动了沿线城市社会经济的快速发展，取得了很好的社会效果。 0系列车最突出的技术特点是：动力分散。那么，0系新干线列车为什么要标新立异，采用动力分散方式呢？因为，尽管日本是一个铁路交通非常发达的国家，但日本修建铁路的先天性条件却并不好：地质松软，山地河流众多。早在20世纪30年代末，就有日本国铁的专家意识到，动力集中方式虽然有诸多优点，但由于机车的轴重大，亦即牵引电机集中在机车上，机车底下的车轴就要承担更大的重量，因而运行时对轨道的破坏作用也大。因此，动力集中方式列车的运行，尤其是高速运行，首先就需要坚固的轨道但对地质松软的日本来说，修建坚固的轨道是一个难题。比较而言，轴重要轻得多的动力分散方式可以减轻对轨道的要求。除此之外，当时日本专家认为采用动力分散方式的优点还有：列车动力更容易根据需要调整；在终点站没有调换车头的麻烦；制动时，分散在多个车辆下的牵引电机还可以作为发电机使用，将列车动能转换为电能从而获得制动力，减小机械制动装置的负担等等。至于动力分散方式振动和噪声大的缺点，可以通过提高减振减噪的技术来解决。 日本新干线开通后，英、法、德三国很快以极高的热情，开始大力推进本国铁路的高速化，他们并没有理会日本的动力分散方式技术，依旧坚持自己一贯擅长的动力集中技术。然而，1964 - 1980年，世界上只有日本有一条真正意义上的高速铁路，日本也只有0系列车一种车型，因此，动力分散方式的0系列车在世界上可谓是一枝独秀。
研制背景 CR200J动力集中动车组是专为既有线普铁内的营运旅客列车动车化改造而设计研发的，促进普铁捷运化。国内既有线普速铁路客车承担着我国铁路一半以上的客运任务，CR200J动车组的研制符合国情和旅客出行需求。CR200J列车是根据中国铁路总公司运输和经营发展需求、提高既有线铁路运输服务品质、充分利用既有线铁路的运输资源和机客车检修资源、依托HXD1G与HXD3G八轴快速客运电力机车和既有25T型客车技术平台而研制的，用于既有线或新线客货铁路推广使用动车组旅客列车，加快普速铁路的捷运化升级。[4-5] 相关单位经营/管理：中国铁路总公司、国家铁路局、中国中车等。研发/生产：中国铁道科学研究院、中车唐山、长客、四方、浦镇、株机、大连、大同等及相关院校。[5] 车辆特征单机双控CR200J列车的车头造型和动力分配与之前其它动车组的有所差异。CR200J单列车组的两端各有一节流线型车头：其中一个是动力机车，外观类似于传统的电力机车，设有驾驶室和大型机电设备，装置电动机引擎和驱动车轮，不载客，负责整列火车的各种供电运转和操作控制，又称“动力车”；另一个车头被称为“控制车”，同样设有驾驶室和司机操控平台，但无大型机电设备和动力装置，其车体除驾驶室外的剩余空间用于搭载旅客，既不是动力车厢也不是机车，而是带驾驶室的无动力车厢。（复兴号系列动车组的两个或一个端头车厢是没有动力的，虽有驾驶室但仍属于拖车，以减少车轮的打滑空转）。[6] CR200J列车本质上仍是传统单机牵引车列，并非完全意义上的动车组，只是它采用了列车头尾两端都配置驾驶室的设计，列车无需更换车头即可折返行驶，其依然以单节机车牵引多节车厢的模式运行。当列车朝机车一端方向行驶时，由于动力机车在前，火车的运行模式是“动车牵着拖车走”；当列车朝控制车方向行驶时，运行模式改为“动车推着拖车跑”，这种牵引方式和上世纪90年从瑞典引进的新时速X2000电力动车组的一致。两列CR200J动车组重联时，正常情况下是控制车端进行对接，两台机车在整列火车的头尾两端，共同结合成长编组动力集中式动车组列车，行驶模式为双动车的“前拉后推”。（新闻资料来源：甘肃新闻·动车试行实况报道）[7] CR200J电力动车组采用相对固定编组和双端头车设计，牵引动力集中可靠，通过实行双向运营大幅减少调车和立折时间，车站到发能力和咽喉通过能力分别提高80%和100%，有力提升铁路运输组织效率，解决普铁车站能力趋于饱和的问题。（科技资料来源：中车唐山·动车研发项目简介）[4] 中国标准CR200J列车作为中国标准动车组的一种，在车厢内饰和结构设计等方面均符合中国动车化标准，设计理念参考了时速350公里的中标动车组。如不同供应商配件可以实现对等替换，不同厂商生产的动力车、拖车，通信标准和接口相同，可以进行互联互通。基于成熟的客运电力机车和25型客车技术平台，该动车组实现了关键系统标准化、模块化、系列化，增加了安全回路和冗余设计。车体采用开放式乙型梁提升防腐性能，新型点焊工艺使得外观平滑流畅，主要部件完全统型，降低了制造和检修难度；可按照动车组检修模式、机务和车辆套管。[4] 细节亮点CR200J动车组融合了传统普速列车和新型高速列车的部分优点，是高铁技术的下延，为新一代准高速机车。中国中车坚持资源整合、一体化协同创新，充分利用高速动车组自主创新成果，采用一体化工业设计，颠覆传统客车概念。在保留大运量的同时，运用新结构、新材料对列车内饰等旅客界面进行动车化创新，如提升隔音隔热及减震性能等。按中标动车组增加人性化设计，如座椅调节和wife 系统等，旅行的舒适度提高。[7] 技术数据列车名称：营运速度：<=160km/h。试验速度：>=200km/h（首批车辆最高仅有176km/h）。全车定员：755（一等座56，二等座699）。车厢编组：1节动车+8节拖车（一等座车1节、二等座车7节）。牵引模式：1节机车（Mc）+7节普通车厢（T）+1节控制车厢（Tc）。额定功率（kw）：5600、6400（瞬时）。行驶线路：既有线普速铁路、部分新建客货共线快速铁路。（数据资料来源：中铁科院·车辆项目新闻动态）[5] 首次试行2018年，中车唐山公司时速160公里动力集中动车组担当
全国动车组大全 名称：神州 车辆介绍：中国首列DMU型双层内燃动车组是一种理想的中、短途轨道运输工具。唐山机车车辆厂于1998年自行开发研制并于当年6月在南昌至九江间投入运行。 此车的试制成功，填补了中国铁路运输工具的一项空白。整车组外形为流线型设计，造型美观、大方。设计编组为2动2拖(固定编组，首尾为动车，中间为拖车，为动力集中型内燃动车组。 车上大量采用现代流行的客车装饰材料，可根据用户要求进行硬座、软座、硬卧、软卧设计。车门采用塞拉门，风档为全密封车设空气调节装置。设卫生间，厕所等。中部可根据用户要求加装酒吧或小卖部。双层内燃动车组分上下两层，上下层间设楼梯，为往返式或旋转式。四角设卫生间，电器室，乘务室或播音室等。整列设空调装置，使旅客的旅行舒适惬意。 动力系统采用美国康明斯QST 30系列产品。整车采用PLC控制，485总线方式数据传输，达到前后车同步的目的。动车组动架为TW160D，非动力转向架为209HS。全部采用无摇枕结构。空气弹簧直接支承车体，牵引为―Z‖字牵引杆。设纵横向减振器及减振装置。牵引电机为架悬式，通过一级齿轮传动驱动轮对。电器连接器选用客车通用大功率连接器，双路供电。车端装有通讯和器连接器。风档采用全封闭风档或橡胶风档。制动采用双路供风。 驱动机械：内燃 动力模式：动力集中 总功率：1320kW 设计速度：120km/h 实验速度：无 基本定员：540人 名称：庐山 车辆介绍：中国首列液力传动内燃动车组，1998年底由四方机车车辆厂研制，并于1999年2月在南昌至九江和南昌至赣州间行。该动车组由2动4拖(M+4T+M)6辆固定编组方式，首尾为动车，起动时一拉一推，俗称推拉式。中间4节为拖车，其中3节车，一节为软硬座合造车。是动力集中型内燃动车组，具有结构简单、安全可靠、起动平稳、加速快、成本低、方便快捷等特点。力传动方式，具有免维修的特点，可走行80万km不打开液力传动箱。该车型分别配属南昌局和哈尔滨局，配属不同在外观上也异。
动力集中与动力分散动车组特点比较（伊朗项目材料）Comparison between EMUs with Centralized and Distributed Power 目前，高速动车组按牵引动力和驱动设备的配置方型分类有两种：动力分散型和动力集中型。At present, the high-speed EMUs can be divided as per power configuration into two categories - power-distributed EMU and power-centralized EMU. 动力集中型动车组是将大部分机械和电气设备集中安装在位于列车两端的动力车即机车上，机车的动力转向架上装有牵引电机，驱动轮对牵引列车运行。中间客车没有动力，由机车牵引。机车不载客，客车载客。编组一拖车形型，示意图如下：般为机车+electrical EMU, most of its mechanical and As for powe-rcentralized equipment are mounted in the motor cars, i.e. locomotives, at the two ends, and the bogies of the locomotives are equipped with traction motors which drive the train from wheelsets. The intermediate cars are not motored, but hauled by locomotives. The do. the intermediate cars locomotives The do not carry any passengers but
时速１６０公里动力集中动车组客运组织暂行规定 第一条一为做好时速１６０公里动力集中动车组列车开行工作?根据中国铁路总公司?铁路旅客运输服务质量规范?等有关文件?制定本规定? 第二条一本规定适用于时速１６０公里动力集中动车组旅客列车客运组织相关工作? 第三条一停站要求?原则上停靠高站台?办理客运业务时车门不摆放安全踏板?不设置警示带? 第四条一车门开关?按?时速１６０公里动力集中动车组运营维修暂行管理办法?规定?由司机进行集控开关门操作?信息报告二关门流程二交接位置按时速２００公里及以上动力分散动车组办理?遇特殊情况?需在非本次列车图定办客站的低站台上下旅客时?列车调度员(车站值班员)提前通知司机停靠低站台(列车调度员办理接发列车时由列车调度员通知或指示车站值班员通知?车站值班员办理接发列车时由车站值班员通知)?司机通知列车长?司机不得集控开门?由列车长组织客运乘务人员手动开关车门?对所开车门实行 一人一门 防护?列车长确认全部车门关闭后报告司机? 第五条一人员配备?客运乘务人员配备由铁路局集团公司根 ２
据列车编组二运行距离二运行时段二停站数量等因素合理确定?各铁路局集团公司要根据客流情况?动态调整乘务人员配备?实行日常二周末及节假日差异化配备? 第六条一服务备品?一等座车不提供免费饮品二小食品等服务?卧车不提供免费餐食?使用复兴号ＣＲ标识?当班客运乘务人员应每人配备站车交互系统?其他按照?铁路旅客运输服务质量规范?附件６?动车组列车服务质量规范?规定办理?第七条一餐饮保洁?列车餐饮保洁以及库内整备保洁二列车看管按时速２００公里以上动力分散动车组办理?其他按照?铁路旅客运输服务质量规范?附件６?动车组列车服务质量规范?规定办理? 第八条一其他未尽事项按时速２００公里以上动力分散动车组列车办理? 第九条一本规定由中国铁路总公司客运部负责解释? 第十条一本规定自２０１９年１月１日起施行? ３