=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-34/paper-17
|storemode=property
|title=A Framework for Characterizing Knowledge Management Methods, Practices, and Technologies
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-34/newman_conrad.pdf
|volume=Vol-34
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/pakm/NewmanC00
}}
==A Framework for Characterizing Knowledge Management Methods, Practices, and Technologies==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-34/newman_conrad.pdf
A Framework for Characterizing
Knowledge Management
Methods, Practices, and Technologies
Brian D. Newman Kurt W. Conrad
The Knowledge Management Forum The Sagebrush Group
W. Richland, WA 99353 Santa Clara, Ca
Bo.Newman@km-forum.org conrad@sagebrushgroup.com
disciplines. Likewise, as individuals encounter
particular phenomena, they tend to describe and
Abstract interpret them in different ways [Kuh96].
Knowledge management is not one The following working definition of knowledge
single discipline. Rather, it an management frames the discussion: knowledge
integration of numerous endeavors and management is a discipline that seeks to improve the
fields of study. This paper provides a performance of individuals and organizations by
framework for characterizing the maintaining and leveraging the present and future
various tools (methods, practices and value of knowledge assets. Knowledge management
technologies) available to knowledge systems encompass both human and automated
management practitioners. It provides
a high-level overview of a number of activities and their associated artifacts.
key terms and concepts, describes the
framework, provides examples of how From this perspective, knowledge management is not
to use it, and explores a variety of so much a new practice as it is an integrating practice.
potential application areas. It offers a framework for balancing the myriad of
technologies and approaches that provide value, tying
1 Introduction them together into a seamless whole. It helps analysts
and designers better address the interests of
Over the past several years, a number of authors have stakeholders across interrelated knowledge flows and,
proposed a variety of approaches for classifying the by doing so, better enables individuals, systems and
tools (methods, practices and technologies) that organizations to exhibit truly intelligent behavior in
typically comprise knowledge management systems. multiple contexts.
This is not the first attempt to develop a framework for
organizing and understanding knowledge The classification framework presented in this paper
management tools. And, given the emerging practices can be used in several ways:
and changing understanding of knowledge
management, it will not be the last. to organize and classify knowledge management
methods, practices and technologies by relating
As with any discipline that lacks a recognized them to distinct phases of the targeted knowledge
unifying paradigm, various views will emerge, each flows
based on what can be readily observed or what can be
to examine knowledge flows to understand the
applied from practices associated with other
interactions and dependencies among pieces of
information, communicators and their associated
The copyright of this paper belongs to the paper’s authors. Permission to copy
without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not
behaviors.
made or distributed for direct commercial advantage.
Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. on Practical Aspects of This paper is organized into two sections. The first
Knowledge Management (PAKM2000) defines key terms and concepts. The second describes
Basel, Switzerland, 30-31 Oct. 2000, (U. Reimer, ed.) the knowledge management framework, its uses and
http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-34/
its benefits.
B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-1
2 Key Terms and Concepts 2.1.3 Knowledge Transfer.
The characterization framework described in this This refers to activities associated with the flow of
paper is based on and integrates a number of knowledge from one party to another. This includes
conceptual models and frameworks. This section communication, translation, conversion, filtering and
introduces those and their related terminology. rendering.
2.1 Knowledge Flows and their Associated 2.1.4 Knowledge Utilization.
Activity Areas This includes the activities and events connected with
There are those who believe that it is impossible to the application of knowledge to business processes.
truly manage knowledge, only behaviors. When 2.1.5 Mapping Knowledge Flows to Activity Areas
individuals examine business processes, events and
activities, they also tend to use a behavioral focus as The GKM sequences these activity areas in a rather
the organizing framework. Accordingly, most people deterministic fashion. In reality, though, all but the
find that behaviors are the most comfortable frame of most rigorously automated knowledge flows comprise
reference for understanding the relationships between complex systems that are built mostly from
business processes and knowledge flows. asynchronous processes. The GKM is valuable
precisely because it relates the myriad of individual,
highly dynamic behaviors and processes to general
Knowledge flows comprise the set of processes, events
and activities through which data, information, activity areas and, by association, to each other.
knowledge and meta-knowledge are transformed from Various theories of learning, problem solving, and
one state to another. To simplify the analysis of cognition may imply specific activity patterns, but they
knowledge flows, the framework described in this are usually not required to organize the key
paper is based primarily on the General Knowledge relationships and dependencies among the activity
Model. The model organizes knowledge flows into areas. The model allows analysts to trace individual
four primary activity areas: knowledge creation, knowledge flows by helping them to examine and
retention, transfer and utilization (Figure 1). understand how knowledge enables specific actions
and decisions.
The GKM is recursive in nature. Within each activity
phase exists other, smaller knowledge flows and
cycles. These layers span a wide range of macro- and
micro-behaviors. They range from very broad
organizational and multi-organizational processes to
very discrete actions and decisions and include all of
the various intervening behavioral layers: activities,
tasks, workflows, systems, interfaces, transforms, etc.
2.2 Knowledge Artifacts
Artifacts come in a variety of forms, including
documents, files, papers, conversations, pictures,
Figure 1. The General Knowledge Model thoughts, software, databases, e-mail messages, data
sets, winks and nods, and whatever else can be used to
2.1.1 Knowledge Creation. represent meaning and understanding. Said another
way: knowledge artifacts flow among and form the
This comprises activities associated with the entry of linkages between the activities and events that
new knowledge into the system, and includes comprise knowledge flows.
knowledge development, discovery and capture.
Most people’s involvement with a knowledge stream
2.1.2 Knowledge Retention.
is through various artifacts. Artifacts are what we deal
This includes all activities that preserve knowledge with every day. We write reports, send e-mail, read
and allow it to remain in the system once introduced. books, remember bits and pieces of old thoughts,
It also includes those activities that maintain the engage in conversations and follow procedures.
viability of knowledge within the system.
B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-2
The term knowledge artifact does not specify the form meaning of the words from their position (on the cover
of the artifact (e.g. information, transformation, of a book), formatting (big, bold and centered) and
metadata or meta-knowledge) but it is very specific as content (lacking formal subject and predicate).
to the process that gave rise to the artifact. This makes
the term valuable for explaining such things as the The potential for ambiguity is one of the
importance of knowledge artifact retention, characteristics of implied knowledge artifacts. Most
establishing provenance and enabling reusability. readers of the sentence, “Ann put on her heavy coat
and locked up her classroom,” implicitly understand
Knowledge artifacts differ from one another in several that it is winter and Ann is a teacher, but there are
ways: their form of codification, the way in which they other inferences that could be made as well. For
are rendered, their degree of abstraction and their consistent interpretation, both the person making the
1
ability to enable actions and decisions. Knowledge statement and the person interpreting it must share
artifacts also vary in their degree of articulation; some common frame of reference to understand when
simple knowledge artifacts can be explicit, implicit or heavy coats are worn and who locks up classrooms.
tacit. Most artifacts, however, are not simple but
complex, and contain a combination of explicit, The underlying knowledge embedded in processes can
implicit and tacit also be considered as an implicit artifact. For example,
a manual detailing the safe way to handle corrosive
2.2.1 Explicit Knowledge Artifacts. materials might include a statement such as “This
material should not be used on polished or anodized
These are knowledge artifacts that have been aluminum services. If swallowed, immediately rinse
articulated in such a way that they can be directly and mouth and drink a glass of milk or water. Do not
completely transferred from one person to another. induce vomiting.” The implicit knowledge contained
This normally means that they have been codified so it within these warnings, combined with what the reader
is possible to touch, see, hear, feel and manipulate might recall from high school chemistry, tells the
them (e.g. books, reports, data files, newsreels, audio reader that the material is likely to be very caustic.
cassettes and other physical forms).
Implicit knowledge artifacts can also be found in
2.2.2 Implicit Knowledge Artifacts. process-specific software. In developing the software,
These are knowledge artifacts whose meaning is not the designers had to conceptualize the processes that
explicitly captured, but can be inferred; in effect, the the software would be supporting. That knowledge
codification process is incomplete. Explicit artifacts will show in the way the software is intended to be
can be interpreted totally on their content. Interpreters used and in the range of behaviors it directly supports.
of implicit artifacts must rely on previously retained Even if not explicitly apparent, these implicit
knowledge. knowledge artifacts will effectively constrain users’
actions. This is often referred to as implicit policy
For example, the knowledge that a given phrase is a making by technologists [Con95].
book title tends to be implicit. Rarely is there anything
that specifically tells someone that they are reading a 2.2.3 Tacit Knowledge Artifacts.
book title, as might be the case in an SGML or XML These may be the most insidious and powerful of the
system when tags explicitly communicate three. Michael Polanyi referred to tacit knowledge as
semantic meaning. In most cases, the reader infers the “knowing more than we can say” [Pol66]. Simply
stated, tacit artifacts are those that defy expression and
2
1 In many circles, it is still common to refer to the codification. This is not to say that tacit knowledge
artifacts are without influence. The most vivid
level of abstraction and the potential role of
example is the old saw about what would happen to
knowledge artifacts by differentiating among data,
information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom.
While such distinctions may still prove helpful in
some cases, problems in definition and interpretation 2 The problem of tacit knowledge, its acquisition and
often arise from any attempt to maintain rigid lines of epistemic status has been the focus of considerable
demarcation. These problems can be avoided through philosophical investigation by such people as Ludwig
the use of the collective term artifact without any Wittgenstein, Edmund Husserl, Hilary Putnam and,
significant loss in the effectiveness or validity of the most significantly, Michael Polanyi.
framework.
B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-3
the centipede if she were to stop and think about how surface of a film could act as an automated agent,
to walk. supporting knowledge creation and capture.
It is important to note that, for the most part, artifacts 2.3.3 Organizational Agents.
are passive. While they can change (or, more
These agents exist in situations in which knowledge
accurately, be changed), they can’t act. Has anybody
retention and transfer cannot be fully attributed to
ever seen a financial report make a decision or a book
individuals or specific automated agents. In these
on aerodynamics build an airplane?
cases, the organization itself serves as an agent in the
retention and dissemination of knowledge. As with
2.3 Agents
tacit knowledge artifacts, current tools and concepts
Knowledge artifacts do not perform actions and make do not account very well for the roles of organizational
decisions. Actions and decisions are undertaken by agents in knowledge flows.
agents: people, organizations, or in some cases,
technology. Agents carry out all the actions and Organizational value systems provide strong evidence
exhibit all the behaviors within a knowledge flow. for the existence of organizational agents. Much has
been written about the ability of organizations and
Often, analysts attempt to apply the same behavioral communities to establish value systems that outlive the
models to all agents in a system. More appropriately, involvement of specific individuals and the power that
agents can be placed in three categories: these value systems have to influence the behavior of
individuals and groups [Kro95}[Kuh96]. The
• Individual agents principles and practices that make up these value
• Automated agents systems are almost never codified.
• Organizational agents.
In fact, when individuals attempt to describe the
2.3.1 Individual Agents. organization’s value system, the descriptions are
usually incomplete, reflecting either an interpretation
These agents sit at the center of almost every of the organization’s values or a blending of
knowledge flow. For most analysts, the individual organizational and individual values. The common
(human) serves as the prototypical active force for use of the terms unwritten rules and organizational
affecting change. In this paper, the term individual is culture is a reflection of the difficulties involved. The
used in the collective sense and is not meant to imply terms acknowledge that organizations are repositories
that every specific individual is capable of the full of tacit knowledge.
range of behaviors attributed to this class of agent.
Individual, organizational and automated agents have
Individual agents are capable of working with different behavioral models. Unlike computerized
knowledge and knowledge artifacts in all degrees of agents, for example, most individuals don’t perform a
abstract articulation. They are limited, however, in given task exactly the same the way every time. If
their ability to deal with artifacts that are codified in human-based knowledge transfer processes are
ways that fall outside the range of human perception designed to work as software processes do and the
(radio waves, for example). The individual agent is the designers fail to leave sufficient room for the factor of
only agent capable of performing all aspects of human variability, the system is unlikely to perform as
knowledge development, retention, transfer and intended.
utilization without the need for intervention by either
of the other two agents. Individual and automated agents also differ in their
ability to handle implicit knowledge artifacts. For
2.3.2 Automated Agents. example, the ability of individuals to infer meaning of
These agents can include any human construct that is book titles usually allows them to accept a wide variety
capable of retaining, transferring or transforming of formats and styles and even recognize titles inside
knowledge artifacts. They are not exclusively streams of text (for example, The Bible). Anyone who
computerized processes, as is often assumed in has built filters to convert documents knows that
discussions of knowledge management. A automated agents are not skilled at supplying context.
conventional camera that encodes a representation of
the visual world through chemical changes to the Agents also differ in the how well they use tacit
knowledge. Individual and organizational agents can
B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-4
handle tacit knowledge, but because automated agents The framework is easy to use when represented as a
can only deal with codified artifacts, and tacit table (for example, Table 1, below). In this form it
knowledge by definition defies codification, automated allows a given tool to be described in terms of its
agents seem destined to be unable to follow suit.3 interactions with the various elements of knowledge
flows and their associated subtypes.
2.3.4 Behavioral Differences Among Agent Types
This is not the only way the framework can be
Individual, organizational, and automated agents have
displayed. The framework is a general-purpose tool
different behavioral models. Unlike computerized
that can be applied to a variety of problems and
agents, for example, most individuals don't perform a
solutions and adapted to individual work styles.
given task exactly the same the way every time. If
human-based knowledge transfer processes are
For example, you could use the table as a simple guide
designed to work like software processes do and the
or checklist to make sure that you have examined a
designers fail to leave sufficient room for the factor of
tool or situation from all of the suggested aspects. You
human variability, the system is unlikely to perform as
might use it to record primary and secondary
intended.
characteristics when comparing similar tools. Or, you
Closely tied to the factor of human variability,
could expand the cells to contain short statements that
individual and automated agents also differ in their
reflect what you know about the interaction of the tool
ability to handle implicit knowledge artifacts. Going
with the target element. All of these are valid
back to the example of book titles, the ability of
approaches and could be used separately or in
individuals to infer meaning usually allows them to
combination. This flexibility is intentional; it can be
accept a wide variety of formats and styles and even
traced back to the framework’s theoretical
recognize book titles inside of streams of text (for
foundations.
example, “The Bible”). Ask anyone who has built
filters to convert documents and has had to deal with The framework’s theoretical roots focus on the role of
issues of ambiguous markup and formatting errors and knowledge in complex systems and fundamental
they will tell you that automated agents are not as knowledge interactions. This focus provides a solid
skilled at supplying missing contexts to understand foundation that can be built upon, applied and adapted
what the individuals writing the document were tying to different contexts.
to imply.
Agents also differ in the way that they make use of So, while this framework can be used to do highly
tacit knowledge. Traditionally, the ability to use tacit formalized analysis, it also works for simpler, back-of-
knowledge is attributed to individual and the-envelope analysis, or even to sort out a couple of
organizational agents. Because automated agents can facts. It works for engineers and psychologists and can
only deal with codified artifacts, and tacit knowledge be used to discuss and describe information policies in
neutral language that is neither business-centric nor
by definition defies codification, automated agents
technology-centric.
seem destined to be left out in the cold4.
The important thing is to keep it simple. By using the
3 The Characterization Framework and framework, you will learn more about your problem
How to Use It and make explicit other things you had known
implicitly or even tacitly. As new facts become
The characterization framework is the application of apparent, the tendency might be to start drilling
the concepts described above to activities such as those deeper and deeper into a facet of the problem. It will
associated with tool selection, development and not take long to realize that the deeper you go, the
deployment. more interrelated that particular facet becomes with
the other areas of the framework. Before you know it,
the problem will have become very complex.
3 More on the ways in which tacit knowledge can be
addressed by knowledge management efforts can be To avoid this trap, take a high-level look at the
problem or situation from all the vantage points
found in The Siamese Twins: Documents and
offered by the framework. This way you develop a
Knowledge [New97]. balanced view of the situation and are in a better
position to understand the interrelationships that occur
4 More on the ways in which tacit knowledge can be as you extend your analysis.
addressed by knowledge management efforts can be
found in [New97]. It is also important to note that the effective use of the
framework is not dependent on selecting just the right
B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-5
Tool Activity Activity Agent Artifact Focus
Phase Level Type Type
Practice
Method
Technology
Creation
Retention
Transfer
Utilization
High-level Process
Mid-level Process
Decision or Action
Individual
Automated
Organizational
Explicit
Implicit
Tacit
Agent
Artifact
Process
Name
Table 1. Sample Rendering of the Framework
starting point. Whether you choose to start with an The framework was designed primarily to support tool
examination of the agent, the artifact, the activity classification, hence the term classification
phase or the activity level, the interrelated nature of framework. It helps individuals identify and
these elements will end up leading you into the rest. differentiate among the roles different tools can play
in a knowledge management system. One of the
When using the framework in a group setting, or
easiest ways to evaluate a tool is to describe its
when two people are using it to examine the same
situation, it is important to keep in mind that the characteristics in terms of its interactions with each of
framework cannot make everyone see a given problem the element subtypes of the framework.
in exactly the same way. If different people or groups
use this framework to look at a single event, odds are, Once tools have been characterized in this fashion,
they will come up with different results. That does not analysts are in a better position to do the following:
mean the framework is flawed. What it means is that
the different observers have applied their own Relate the various ways that methods, practices
experience and personal knowledge5 to the and technologies can impact the flow of
interpretation. knowledge within an organization
Identify if the primary role of a given tool is to
The approach of using a single record for all of the
manipulate artifacts, influence agent behavior or
elements associated with a specific tool is intended to
focus attention on high-level analyses. This is just one establish behavioral patterns
application of the framework. If you need to perform Distinguish between the types of agents whose
more detailed analyses, other application approaches behaviors will be most influenced by a given tool
are possible. For example, you might want to construct Distinguish the level of organizational behavior
smaller matrices that contrast individual elements, the tool will most likely affect.
such as activity phase and activity level and repeat the
analysis at each intersection point. This could help 3.1.1 Using the Framework to Identify Knowledge
clarify the location of critical interactions to better Flow Elements
identify targets of opportunity for improving
knowledge flows and associated agent performance. Underlying the application of the framework in tool
classification is the ability to use the framework to
3.1 Using the Framework to Classify Knowledge identify and classify the individual elements of
Management Tools knowledge flows and their supporting knowledge
management systems (i.e. agents, artifacts and
5 Prior personal knowledge can be explicit, implicit, behaviors). In effect, the framework provides a way to
subdivide knowledge flows into more manageable
or tacit, or a combination of all three. More on the components.
nature of prior retained knowledge can be found in It is one thing to subdivide, but it is another to
[New97] subdivide and maintain meaning. Mapping knowledge
B.D. Newman, K.W. Conrad 16-6
flow elements to agents, artifacts and behaviors raises
the level of abstraction and, in effect, simplifies the The framework has been used to successfully improve
elements. At the same time, care must be taken not to the reliability of collaborative decision-making
oversimplify and damage usability. The further processes and the quality of resulting decisions. It has
subtyping of agents, artifacts and behaviors (for helped to illuminate the relationships among new
example, by activity phase and level) maintains information, known facts, prior leanings and value
enough richness and context for the framework to be systems. This has allowed decision making and
usable. For most purposes, this level of subtyping governance patterns to be identified and translated
maintains a healthy balance between simplicity and into both general strategies for improvement and
sophistication. specific designs for decision-making processes and
formal governing bodies.
3.1.2 Using the Framework to Analyze Knowledge
Flows and Identify Gaps Within a number of projects, the framework has been
Because the framework illuminates the nature of the used to map end-user behaviors to specific metadata
relationships among knowledge flow elements, it requirements and document designs. The framework
allows analysts to take the myriad of data points has proved useful precisely because it focuses attention
associated with complex knowledge flows and put on the interactions of multiple agents and processes.
them into a structure in which the relationships and This helps individuals identify and differentiate the
dependencies become far more apparent (or even metadata and other knowledge artifacts most
explicit). This structuring process, in turn, helps appropriate and valuable to each of the ever-increasing
illuminate both patterns and the gaps that result from number of agents and processes that seek to interact
missing or unarticulated elements. with such artifacts.
Often, gaps in understanding drive the phenomenon of 3.2.2 Selection of Knowledge Management
overloading, when the distinctions among artifacts, Products.
agents and behaviors are blurred and the nature of the
Like the document management market that preceded
relationships becomes confused. With the growth of
it, the market for knowledge management tools and
advanced data standards, such as dynamic HTML,
technologies is a confusing one. When used to support
people seem far more likely to confuse artifacts and
market analysis, the framework helps to articulate the
behavior. When faced with an HTML