I infer that even though the buzz around Google Wave is a lot quieter these days, behind the scenes Google are ‘wavifying’ their other products to get Wave adoption via alternative means.

The word “Knowledge” is a good example. In our line of work we obviously use the word extensively – it is part of our business name after all. We promote activities centred on “Knowledge Management” and we like to think that “Knowledge Services” are important to every organisation.

But what is “Knowledge”? Does it matter how we define it? Is it even the right word?

Alavi & Leidner (MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 1, Mar., 2001, pp. 107-136) report on a few different perspectives on Knowledge including:

1. Knowledge can be defined in terms of its relation to data and information. Data is facts, information is interpreted data and Knowledge is personalised information.
2. Knowledge is an object or asset that can be modified.
3. Knowledge is present in the act of doing something, in the act of application.
4. Knowledge is representative of the capability to influence action.

We find the use of differentiating knowledge by comparison to data and information not terribly useful. To begin with the terms data and information are often as elusive to the application of a definitive meaning. Secondly, the comparative definition suggests that there is a hierarchy, with data at the bottom and knowledge at the top. But as pointed out by Tuomi (Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 16, No. 3, Dec., 1999, pp. 103-117) the hierarchy could be turned upside down because knowledge is required to identify what type of data to collect in the first place. Finally, even if we were able to disentangle these issues would we still be any better off in our efforts to leverage knowledge management to improve organisational performance?

The second method for defining knowledge, as an object or asset, is an appealing definition because an object conjures up persistent material qualities that means that it can be ‘stored’ or ‘retrieved’. That is, if it is a material item then it can be ‘managed’. And we’re not adverse to the concept that someone can write a book, and someone else can read it and then claim they have some of the author’s knowledge. We might dispute that they both have the same knowledge, but they definitely now share some knowledge. So somehow the book has ‘carried’ the knowledge of the author to the reader? Following, it is not difficult to imagine that people can create wiki pages or Intranet pages and readers can learn and develop their knowledge. So, therefore the Intranet system is crucible of knowledge. But a warning, though the concept of knowledge as an asset is easy to grasp, and therefore practical, it does not mean that it necessarily stands up under scrutiny. For example does knowledge really live outside of our heads? Let’s take a knowledge management system full of documents, forum posts, Intranet pages from an Australian council. To them it houses knowledge. If we placed that system into the hands of a Brazilian financial corporation in twenty years from now. Would they think it contains knowledge? Assuming none speak English then they would not be able to read the contents of the site. If they could, would find old information for a specific region of Australia. And they would see it as just that, information. It is information because their context is far removed from the originators of the ‘knowledge’. Therefore whether or not we may think of it as knowledge or not depends upon the context of its use, therefore, perhaps we can’t use this meaning at all?

The third meaning, that knowledge is really only present in the act of doing something, not stored in a system or a book, is a sort of ‘know-how’ interpretation. To us it conjures up the culmination of an individual’s past experience applied in the act of doing something. The activity-based meaning also causes us to think about the differentiation between knowledge and skills. For example an experienced painter has knowledge of different colours and how to mix them on her palette. However she also has a type of ‘muscle-memory’ when applying her oils to the canvas. Her hand applies the type of strokes needed for the type of effect required. Similarly a seasoned programmer has commonly built up methods of thinking that translate easily between different languages. These ‘ways of thinking’, or embedded skills, that are a result of repetition- is this different from knowledge or a different sort of knowledge? These thoughts, especially the ‘ways of thinking’, are analogous to the oft-cited endeavour of the new CEO to change the culture of the organisation.

The last interpretation of knowledge is interesting because it takes an agency view on knowledge. It is almost a political agent view that ‘knowledge is power’. Contrast this meaning with the comparatively passive ‘knowledge as an object to be received’ or the here-and-now of ‘knowledge is used in an activity’. With knowledge as a measure of the capability to influence action there is a sense that knowledge is marshalled towards a purpose. This is helpful for our purposes and I’ll summarise next.

So does this discussion help us? Does defining knowledge matter? I believe it does. We’re a long way from completing a longitudinal study of the definition of knowledge, nor have we travelled far back into the Greek philosophical tradition where the matter was first raised. However we have uncovered some interesting lessons from our narrow assessment.

Lessons:

Thinking about knowledge as something storable is helpful because it prepares us for the opportunity to capture and transfer knowledge. But to compliment that thought it is helpful to understand the context that the information will be used. That’s because thinking about the context of the use of information means that we can identify which activities are of high value and have a high dependency on explicit knowledge. It then follows that you won’t unnecessarily attempt to capture everything (not that you ever could) and secondly, with the audience in mind, what you do capture can be thoughtfully stored and presented – i.e. more targeted and more useful at the time it is needed.

Overarching these imperatives for our knowledge strategy is reflected in the last meaning – the power to influence. What is it that we want to influence? I believe this question is important and it points back to the strategy of the organisation. If you’re unable to make a strong case for a knowledge management strategy by using the organisation’s overall strategy then your efforts to thoughtfully capture, store, and publish the organisation’s knowledge may be targeted at the wrong activities and you’ll find your capability to influence is lost.

The plugin works like this:

1. open up email
2. determine email should be added to the document management system
3. press the ‘Import to Documents’ button
4. document management system automatically starts
5. document management system asks which folder you would like to add the email to
6. job done!

We find that small applications like this, have a massive impact on useability and take up, especially during the early implementation stages of a project.

So what is really a metadata?, Well it is data about data and provides a way of classifying or tagging a document or a object that enables the users to search for a object(document etc) in a large repository.

Lets take some scenarios where we practically use metadata. A typical example is a library that is a huge database of books and if there is no identifier for a particular book its almost impossible to search for it, and so what is that identifier; Yes, thats what is a metadata. A book in a library has got a ISBN, author, title and these parameters helps us to search for a book. Similarly, imagine a hospital that has got records of thousands of patients and is searchable just by a click of the mouse in the system. How do you think is that possible?, it is because of that metadata that is associated with particular person (either a registration number or a unique identifier)

We also use metadata when we go to a supermarket to buy groceries. You have got aisles marked for a particular types of products and these aisle numbers are a kind of metadata as it provides information about the product you are searching for.

Therefore metadata plays a highly critical role in the any kind of system as it helps in classification and tagging of objects and it is essential that we realise the importance in the very beginning when we think of implementing a system before its too late. Decision on the type of metadata to be introduced should be a planned and well co-ordinated one, as it forms the base for a system.

If you require more information on metadata, please click here

Amanda commenced by talking about why organising information, that is, Information Architecture, is important to an organisation’s Intranet. Firstly, IA is especially important for an Intranet because ‘users get used to where things are’. That is, they build up navigational memory over time for the pieces of information that they regularly re-use. This is in contrast to the Internet where users are not overly surprised when information has moved and often avoid navigation all together through the use of search. So if you structure your information well then you can achieve an architecture that is not too complex or deep and therefore save system users a lot of time in both clicks and path learning.

Secondly, and related to the first point, IA is important because users go to the Intranet when they’re looking for some specific information or they want to complete a specific task. Users don’t generally visit the Intranet to simply browse or check the organisation’s news. In fact, from the perspective of an Intranet implementer I would propose that we discount completely the chance that anyone will go to the Intranet to merely browse. Taking this view focuses the Intranet implementer on making sure there is critical information and services on the Intranet so that users are forced to use the system. However, that is my digression, Amanda was simply pointing out that when you are clear that users are going to the Intranet to specifically find or do something then it is clear that IA is an important Intranet success factor.

Another point made was that the process of completing an IA project is important because every organisation is unique and therefore so is every Intranet. Undoubtedly organisations that are in the same sector, such as law firms or accounting practices, will share some similarities in their navigational structures but that doesn’t mean they’ll be the same. Factors such as size, history, culture, service focus, clients and so on influence the way information is structured. In essence, a little like a fingerprint.

From Amanda’s point of view the key to Information Architecture is understanding both the user and organisational context. The organisational context, I suggest, can be formed from investigating matters such as the organisation’s clients, services, relevant legislature, business partnerships, mission statement, objectives, management style, structure and existing content sources (shared drives, current Intranet) . To analyse the user’s context Amanda suggested a number of techniques such as shadowing and card sorting, the later of which we tried during the session.

The card sorting exercise is conducted with a number of cardboard cards, each with a one, or a couple, of words depicting a potential end node of information. For example a card may say “HR Policies” or “Meet the Executive Board” or “Timesheet Submission”. Use of end-nodes without any potential grouping cards such as “Services” or “Operations” is referred to as ‘Open’ card sorting because users can create their own subject areas. The opposite, with grouping cards, is naturally referred to as ‘Closed’ card sorting because the facilitator is removing some of the users ability to come up with their own groupings.

It is an advantage if the workshop group includes representatives from different parts of the organisation and it helps if the group is small (i.e. conduct multiple small card sorting workshops). During the session our workshop was a mock-up of a ski field site. It was interesting watching the dynamics of my group. Immediately one member started to sort cards into mountain groupings. For example, Eating on Mt Hotham, Shopping on Mt Hotham etc. Meanwhile another member of the group immediately started sorting cards into activity groups – Eating, Shopping etc. We quickly had to make a decision – how would we group these? How would someone expect to find out about Eating on Mt Hotham? Through a Mt Hotham path or through an Eating on the Ski Fields path? (Though the answer isn’t as important as the question, we decided on grouping by location).

The card sorting workshop is useful for devising a practical Information Architecture, but it has other useful consequences. It achieves both user buy-in as well as highlighting the difficulty of the task to users. In my mind it also would help in users understanding others needs and thereby grow their own understanding of the organisation and consequently prepare them for navigational concessions they may have to make. On the latter point, navigational concessions, there was some discussion about utilising multiple paths to find a peice of information. This is a valid and useful technique but I’m wary that it might be counter-productive if over used – especially in a menu structure. Problems may arise in terms of maintenance overhead, navigational tree complexity, perceived logic and user training.

In summary, an interesting presentation. For me it raises questions such as “Are users more likely to use search anyway? (or are their particular types of users who use search?)” or “How does a methodology to arrive at an IA differ from the methodology to describe a Business Classification System in Records Management?” – but hopefully we can get to these in the future.

Definition – someone who studies the practice of knowledge management.

Ok, so it may not roll off the tongue, but we like it more than ‘Knowledge Manager’.

Some related terms include:

- Knowlogy – the study of knowledge management

- Knowligism – a phrase related to knowledge management

The article talks about that while organisations recognise the importance of knowledge management, most don’t do enough to really leverage the benefits. This is something that we come across every day in our work. However, this is slowly changing, and as the article suggests, this is being driven by technology – in particular faster networks and software solutions such as Customer Relationship Management systems and Intranets.

What was interesting were the differing techniques that had evolved (or were explicitly planned) to encourage the sharing of their ideas and information. These included:
1. The setting
The setting was explicitly far from the attendees day-to-day operations so that they could free their mind from distractions and get on with the workshop.

2. The culture
At the start of each workshop there was an explicit request to all attendees to leave their egos at the door. This is to encourage an open and honest environment where people communicate free of feelings (as far as it is possible) such as “Perhaps I shouldn’t suggest this idea because he may be offended” or “Am I about to ask a stupid question?”. The less on here is when sharing knowledge it is helpful to try and remove social impediments to open dialogue.

Another example of the culture was the habit of attendees removing their shoes. It was a strange one but again I believe it encourages some humility and some feeling of “we’re all in this together”.

3. Process
The process of wine tasting and attaining and distributing critical evaluations of the wine was well orchestrated. Not just a free-for-all. It included techniques such as selecting a different subset of attendees, for each wine, to state their critique. Once they have finished then all attendees could contribute. This meant that they are encouraging broad participation and for some individuals they will grow confidence in speaking in a group whereas if it had simply been “Who want’s to critique this wine?” each time you may end up with the same contributors over and over again. Further, by going to the floor at the end you haven’t necessarily shut off someone who does have something valuable to add to the assessment.

Matt’s talk is a great example of how good knowledge sharing doesn’t have to include some sort of Lotus Notes/Intranet/Wiki/Web 2.0 social media technical implementation. Often it’s just about the people and processes.

People and Policy

1. Do your staff recognise the benefits of sharing knowledge? If not a communications strategy may be your first step. Clearly state the benefits of sharing knowledge from both an organisational (sustainability, profit) and an individual perspective (reputation);
2. Modify your performance appraisal apparatus to include incentives that reflect an individual’s contributions to organisational learning and knowledge. Simply put, pay them more for more contributions – the carrot approach;
3. In the overall utilisation of staff members include a percentage of time dedicated to sharing knowledge;
4. Link organisation performance to staff rewards such as shares in the case of a for-profit company;
5. For staff who are retiring offer to re-hire them as contractors in mentoring role. This mostly nullifies their job position security concerns and aligns their performance with their ability to teach other staff;

Knowledge Management Tools (which assist your policies)

1. Change your knowledge management tools to include an ability to:
   1. measure staff contributions;
   2. measure re-use of staff contributions (e.g. “This helped me!” link)

I think it is valuable to delve a little more into that last point and invesetigate sharing from the receiver’s end. Many staff who have built up extensive experience may become hesitant to use knowledge other people have shared. Therefore we then need to look at not just motivating the people that share knowledge but also those who may use it. For example, have a “This helped me!” link on each knowledge item can be used to measure not only the reputation of that item, and therefore it’s author, but also the receiver’s ability to re-use knowledge. If receiver is utilising lot’s of persisted knowledge, ie. clicking the helped me link on may knowledge items then they should also be rewarded. Of course a “This helped me” link is not ultimately the best solution, there are other methods, but this is just example for illustration purposes.

There are a number of strategies that exist to encourage knowledge sharing. How would you answer the above challenge and what other strategies do you use?