Categories: Assessment | Method | Reasoning
[Dictionaries], [Haig 2005] relates this to the scientific method to replace hypothetico-deductive or unsafe inductive theory generation. Not well defined around the match between theory and evidence; that is, it's possible for example to make vague theories that fit the facts which is not helpful (see eg [Feynman 1964]) which is to do with assessing which abducted theory is the {Best Explanation} . [Johnson 1998] suggestes that Abductive Justification depends on (1) how decisively a hypothesis surpassess the others (2) how good it is by itself against the evidence (3) confidence in the evidence and (4) how thorough the search for alternatives was. [Callaway 2014] ties together abduction with model and hypothesis selection {NOT:Induction} {NOT:Deduction}
Best Explanation | NOT:Induction | NOT:Deduction
Dictionaries | Haig 2005 | Feynman 1964 | Johnson 1998 | Callaway 2014
Categories: Time | Assimilation
Determined partly by prior related knowledge and its distribution across, and flow between, subsidiaries, as well as the {Social} similarity between source and target to more closely connect the explanation and assimilation [Cohen & Levinthal 1990] [Lenox & King 2004]. (However, in some cases {Stickiness} can lead to experts being unable to cope with rapidly changing situations that don't fit with the accumulated knowledge) (I think attitude - eg curiousity - and broadly informed might also be good determinants. Presumably also related to {Attention} and {Motivation}) Also determined according to [Bosch,Volberda & Boer 1999] by the {Organisation Structure} related to its ability to transfer knowledge, and its ability to dynamically re-organise {Organization Flexibility} to adapt to bring knowledgable and ignorant closer together. They have three variables: System (eg existing codes & exchagne mechanissm, information systems, etc) coordination (training, liaison & participation) and social. {Distraction} by immediate access - from knowing that remote repositories (eg libraries) exist, to having lots of knowledge almost immediately accessible a click away [Sieloff 1999]. C69+C85 Corresponding characteristic is the amount and complexity of information that can be made explicit by the knowledge sources (the {Disseminative Capacity} ). The two characteristics are related by the closeness of the source and the target, and so the ability to explain and describe in a language and with concepts familiar to both (see eg attempt to simulate by [Mu, Tang & MacLachlan 2009] and [Tang, Mu & MacLachlan 2010] .
Social | Stickiness | Attention | Motivation | Organisation Structure | Organization Flexibility | Distraction | Disseminative Capacity
Cohen & Levinthal 1990 | Lenox & King 2004 | Bosch,Volberda & Boer 1999 | Sieloff 1999 | Mu, Tang & MacLachlan 2009 | Tang, Mu & MacLachlan 2010
Categories: Time
Acquisition Information Quality represents the extent of accessibility of information. It reflects the characteristics of accessing and retrieving information and measures the extent to which information is available and retrievable. The acquisition dimension includes accessibility measures but also aspects of security and data protection [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011] {Response Time} [Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995] suggest that universal access to company information is important so that different interpretations and new knowledge can be freely generated - whcih contrasts with (anecdotal) tendency in the west still for teams to build their own areas and lock them away from everyone else.
Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011 | Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995
Categories: Quality | Trust | Uncertainty
Defined for engineering in eg [ISO 5725-1] and [NIST] as {Trueness} and {Precision}. Information Quality characteristics in [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011] and a common term see [Dictionaries] Cannot be known (as we cannot know what reality actually is). Value Validity in [Gaur & Gaur 2006]
ISO & 5725-1 | NIST | Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011 | Dictionaries | Gaur & Gaur 2006
Categories: Assimilation
Categories: Organisation | Social
Cons: Finding people to talk to. Not your own space (personal clutter and reference material; social). Pros: forced churn, mixing contacts and networks {Anti:Collaborator Situation Invisibility} {Background awareness} {Interruptions}
ANTI:Collaborator Situation Invisibility | Background awareness | Interruptions
Categories: Uncertainty
Unknowable uncertainty; rolling the dice cannot be predicted, but (maybe) probabilities can be assigned In principle, as [Klugel 2007] argues, Aleatory Variability is also subject to {Epistemic Uncertainty} as we can't really tell if the dice is biased or not. However I think this is too strong; we can have situations where the assumptions to simplify down to Aleatory Variability is useful. A requirement for, eg Bayesian modelling of possibilities from uncertaint input evidence and likelihoods
[SAS 050] {Response Time}
Categories: Time | Quality | Method | Trust
Fairly common analytic tool, see eg Structured Analytic Techniques [Heuer 2010], Quick Wins for Busy Analysts [DIA 2013]. Similarly {Best Explanation} in academic work Suffers from hidden GIGO {Garbage In Garbage Out} or {Crackpot Rigour}; can 'seem' objective, so puts a thin veneer over the top of rubbish. Useful as a way of systematically re-appraising {anti:Bias}. Not fast {anti:timeliness}
Best Explanation | Garbage In Garbage Out | Crackpot Rigour | ANTI:Bias | ANTI:timeliness
Categories: Other | Colocation
Consider alternatives to moving the information from source to assessor. For example, move the assessor to the information or move the assessing task by delegation. Derived from alternate practice for decision making (ie, moving the decision making or decision maker) see eg candidate list [Eriksson 2009] {Delegation} {Colocation}
Categories: Assessment | Assessing | Bias | Community Bias
Intrepretating ambiguous measurements, and differently mixed data feeds, result in alternative interpretations that are frequently given as 'facts'. For example "Global warming is a fact" or "It is a fact that the universe came into being 13bn years ago" are both actually assertions of conclusions; of interpretating datasets with corresponding assumptions and adjustments. Popularised following use at a press conference by Kellyanne Conway 2017 and rapidly became a {Poisoned term} to imply falsehood. Now part of the wider {Tribal} aspects of meta-debate: 'we' do truths and facts 'which are not partisan' and 'they' do falsehoods and 'alternative facts'. See also {Othering}
Poisoned term | Tribal | Othering
Categories: Knowledge | Situation Awareness | Situation Complexity
Categories: Social | Quality | Context
Categories: Social
Apologies in argument '' social and internal repositioning eg [Smith via DigLib] that allows contradictions to be resolved and knowledge to continue to transfer
Categories: Cognitive Bias | Bias | Social
An early example was the Nixon vs Kennedy debate, where contemporaries claimed that Nixon suffered from his appearance compared with Kennedy (however this appears to be not well founded, see eg [Vancil & Pendell 1987] ) Also that appearances affect success eg [Judge & Cable 2004] and trustworthiness [Petrican, Todorov & Grady 2014] [Todorov 2008]. OKCupid ran some interesting trials on their members to look at how the information (text) weighed against the appearance (pictures) and found - it had almost no weight at all. [Rudder 2014] ...however there are some studies that suggest that *not* appearing is a problem see eg {Colocation} and {Collaborator Situation invisibility}.
Colocation | Collaborator Situation invisibility
Vancil & Pendell 1987 | Judge & Cable 2004 | Petrican, Todorov & Grady 2014 | Todorov 2008 | Rudder 2014
Categories: Quality | Method | Assessment
''Argumentation'' is a means of conveying evaluations and the reasoning behind them in a structured way. ie, persuasion through reason, rather than persuasion through rhetoric. [Rodriguez 2007] [Dictionaries] {Assimilation} {Reasoning} {Rationality} {Speech Acts} {Persuasion}
Assimilation | Reasoning | Rationality | Speech Acts | Persuasion
Categories: Quality | Time | Method
Distributing knowledge across collaborations requires more than just dissemination. For knowledge to be useful to different components in a collaboration, it has to be combined with other knowledge, assessed for worth, compared with the situation and context and other knowledge, and filtered and weighted for suitability. All this uses expertise at each step.
As information and theory, referring to the output of the fusion/assessment. Which is input (information) to something else {Information}
Categories: Time | Quality | Method
Category Characteristic for characteristics such as decision cycles, intelligence cycles, etc. While these are sometimes used as workflows (see eg Battle Rythm), they should only be used as training models for how we think, not models for processes [Hill FTX night essay] [Storr 2009] [Morse 2013] {Intelligence Cycle} {Decision Cycle}
Intelligence Cycle | Decision Cycle
Hill, FTX, night, et al | Storr 2009 | Morse 2013
Categories:
{Red team} Costs more {Resources} but *can* be used to improve accuracy. [Heiman] points out that simply adding more assessors, whether in {Veto Redundancy} or {Mandate Redundancy} (he uses 'serial' and 'parallel' but these are logic gate models) can result in reducing Type I errors at the expense of more Type II, adn vice versa. Instead, to reduce the opportunities of both, you need assessment teams in both {Veto Redundancy} and {Mandate redundancy} voting structures. this of course has higher {Resources} costs, and can lead to {Redundancy Shirking} and {Turf Wars}
Red team | Resources | Veto Redundancy | Mandate Redundancy | Veto Redundancy | Mandate redundancy | Resources | Redundancy Shirking | Turf Wars
Categories: Knowledge Transfer
Communication, or Acquiring information is necessary but insufficient; that information also needs to be internalised. [Li 2005 p22] Although this might be included in the term {Acquisition}': "What do we mean by ''acquisition'' if it''s not in your head" [Zarinpoush & Gotlib 2006] Called "Combinative Capability" when talking about organisation's abilities to suitably internalise knowledge by eg [Kogut & Zander 1992 via Bosch, Volberda, Boer 1999] {Learning}
Li 2005 p22 | Zarinpoush & Gotlib 2006 | Kogut & Zander 1992 via Bosch, Volberda & Boer 1999
Categories: Social
Reputation from association: "I am one of these, and you are of these, so in order to prevent these from coming into disrepute, I will make sure you have what you need to know". And "I am one of these, you are one of those, and X is one of those and he is.... " {Reputation} {Prejudice} {Othering}
Reputation | Prejudice | Othering
Categories: Time | Quality | Method
Assumptions reduce complexity. Explicit assumptions are ways of agreeing what's been fixed. Hidden assumptions are extremely difficult to extract [Shaw & Thompson 2016] {Inputs} {outputs}
Attention is a pool [Endsley]. Can the pool size be changed? Draws on attention can be reduced by experience (and therefore suitable training). eg drills for rifle loading and firing reduce draws on attention during combat and need for explanation [DePuy 1958]. But compare with use of mobile phones when driving, some attention cannot be separated [Bhargava & Pathania 2013] and [Strayer et al 2003] Managing Knowledge is not free; [Sieloff 1999] "even as the web introduced more information, it did nothing to expand our limited attention capacity". In internal knowledge markets 'members need enough time to shop for knowledge or to sell it' [Davenport & Prusak 1998 p47 via Hinds & Pfeffer 2003] Related to {Cognitive Load} which is a kind of measure of draws on attention, and a variation of {Cognitive Capacity} which is a kind of measure of the maximum load that someone can be put under.
Cognitive Load | Cognitive Capacity
Endsley | DePuy 1958 | Bhargava & Pathania 2013 | Strayer & et al 2003 | Sieloff 1999 | Davenport & Prusak 1998 p47 via Hinds & Pfeffer 2003
Categories: Other
Another way of looking at viewpoints and predilections [Oskamp 2005 via DigLib] that drive both the ability to absorb knowledge, but also willingness to share and to find ways to share. Fostering attitudes in an organisation or creating suitable incentives saves having to direct knowledge distribution. {Incentives} {Culture}
Categories: Other
Are the right communication links being made between the right people? Are people talking indirectly to people who then have to relay? Do they have the right language and skills (eg liaisons and FOOs)
Categories: Information Assurance
Common term [Dictionaries]
Categories: Other
An edge-topic in this study, related to command and control but also affects what assessments can be made where. [Eriksson 2009] {Delegation}
Background subliminal awareness eg of what's going on around you in open plan offices without dividers keeps you aware of context (contrast with {Collaborator Situation Invisibility} when dealing with people who are not colocated, and so cannot be aware of), and fosters small-scale knowledge sets from evesdropping and serendipitous connections between people. [Sieloff 1999] so distributed teams should only apply when the benefits (eg wider pool of expertise) outwiegh the costs (close cooperation). Also distracting, consumes attention. . {physical proximity} {Colocation}
Collaborator Situation Invisibility | physical proximity | Colocation
Categories: Knowledge Transfer | Information Transfer
Often a marker for {Boundaries} For example Cost centre barriers; have you got a booking code for this conversation? No? Then I cannot book my time to it and therefore cannot talk to you. (from conversation with March, Pike, Beattie et al) {Motivation Barriers} and {Cognitive Barriers} suggested by [Hinds & Pfeffer 2003]
Boundaries | Motivation Barriers | Cognitive Barriers
"Being there" improves credibility and possibly reduces misunderstandings [Mortensen & Neeley 2009]. However beware having been in *similar* situations that are different in Important Ways (Neglected Vital Differences) {Reputation} {Context} {Tribalism} {Collaborator Situation Invisibility}
Reputation | Context | Tribalism | Collaborator Situation Invisibility
Categories: Trust
[Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011] Slightly different from {Trust}, in that something may be Believable but the source is not trusted, or that the source is strongly trusted but the information is not believed due to a (possibly incorrect) existing situation picture (see {Iconoclastic Sausage})
Categories: Method
Similar to {Alternate Hypothesis testing}. Tackling the problem of several possible explanations for the same evidence, and what this means for prediction. See eg [Thagard 1978] (but much older topic) who suggests three measures of 'better': Consilience (how many classes of observation does it explain), Simplicity (how many strange/odd add-ons are required) and Analogy (which is really to do with explanation, rather than validity).
Categories: Routines
May be "Shallow" as implementers and even trainers do not need to know *why* the business process is 'best practice'. This can make transfer quicker improving {Timeliness} and reducing {Cognitive Load} (as less understanding is required) but makes it harder to adapt {Flexibility} to fit particular or changing circumstances. [Szulanski 1996] describes the transfer of best practice in four stages, and some difficulties in each as {Stickiness} Not always clear what it is due to {Causal Ambiguity} and if not careful leads to {Superstitious Learning}, but even {Gorillas In A Cage} learn
Timeliness | Cognitive Load | Flexibility | Stickiness | Causal Ambiguity | Superstitious Learning | Gorillas In A Cage
Categories: Method | Timeliness | Quality
Not just speeding things up/improving quality/process, but doing something different that is better. Eg stepping away from decision cycles?
Category Characteristic [Dictionaries]. Biases can be mitigated by training and methods and techniques appropriate to the bias, eg [Heuer 1999] {Heuristics} {Skew} {ANTI:objective} anti
Heuristics | Skew | ANTI:objective
Categories: Organisation | Organisation structure
For example, [Ciborra et al 1996] outline the increased difficulties of sharing knowledge through the boundary defined by who is inside and who is outside a single firm, then who is inside and outside a collaborating group that includes that firm. Boundaries will usually come with some {Barriers} to communication, such as (in the case of [Ciborra et al 1996] above) reduced incentives to share with 'external' organisations and disincentives to share with competitors.
Ciborra & et al 1996 | Ciborra & et al 1996
Categories:
Categories: Organisation
eg {Liaison} or negotiators, partners, etc. [Katz & Kahn 1978] . Also the kitchen (especially one that encourages interaction - like a badly planned one), the smoking room/shed (which is reducing), the coffee pot or water cooler. 'Leaning out' non-productive time in these places have less obvious costs. Case study of both informal and informal boundary spanning [Kim & Jarvenpaa 2008] See also for example knowledge management between customers and Starbucks [Alton 2013]
Katz & Kahn 1978 | Kim & Jarvenpaa 2008 | Alton 2013
Categories: Assessing
Associated with [Simon 1957] but the concept (we only think 'properly' in limited circumstances) probably for much longer
Categories: Knowledge
The philosophical discussion around what is knowledge, particularly when based on {true justified belief}, still continues. The Brain in a VAT scenario (are we simulations for some future PhD student, either en-mass or in small groups, are we brains in a VAT, dreams of a Demon, etc) are essentially refutations that we can know that we are in a real world, and therefore we cannot truly know anything (see summary by [Hickley 2017] ) Pragmatically, therefore, this would seem to be a good reason to adjust the requirements for 'knowledge' rather than try and work the other way around. We may or may not *truly* know what the world is, but I know if I stub my toe it hurts, and therefore I try not to stub my toe whether it is a real toe or a virtual one.
Categories: Knowledge Transfer | Observation
{Communication} Body-worn police cameras carry several good/bad issues as {Social} effects on both civilians and police, but aid to knowledge transfer less clear. Can show 'actual' events better than recollection (or claimed recollection) but not events off-camera or obscured, or previous to recording. Interpretations remain mixed according to expertise (see eg [Otu 2016] ) and issues with privacy once the recording has been made and is in an archive. Also "Kill TV" distraction; video feeds brought into HQs results in distraction of staff in the HQ, rather than delegating the assessment to image analysts in specialist teams.
Categories: Collaborator Situation Invisibility
From [Lippman & Rumelt 1982] although they were talking about uncertainty in commercial organisations imitating other ones due to not being clear what to imitate (or indeed, not being clear about what a firm did itself that was successful). More clearly explained and expanded by [Powell, Lovello & Caringal 2006]. Related to {Tacit Knowledge} where it's not clear what the knowledge is that produced the goods. In particular can restrain effective {Knowledge Transfer} in situations where the Source has high {Trustworthiness}, as the recipient spends less time checking the details and so exposing the ambiguity [Szulanski, Capetta & Jensen 2004]
Tacit Knowledge | Knowledge Transfer | Trustworthiness
Lippman & Rumelt 1982 | Powell, Lovello & Caringal 2006 | Szulanski, Capetta & Jensen 2004
Categories: Sampling
from operation market garden, observing the bridges (eg Charles Labouchere in [Ryan 1974]). Also camel or other livestock 'crush', where all the animals are put through one channel to be cleaned but also weighed and inspected.
Categories: Routines | Codifying
A checklist is an externalised, expressed, explicit, coded routine that can be created by experts and then easily communicated to non-experts for execution. {Explicit Knowledge} {Codifying} {Routines}
Explicit Knowledge | Codifying | Routines
Categories: Social | Organisation
see eg "Churn Rate" [Dictionaries]. Loss of local expertise and team cohesion, vs bringing in new ideas and fresh approaches. Not all churn is bad, depending on who is going (the term "Acceptable Attrition" has been heard used) {Experience} [Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995] recommend controlled internal churn to spread knowledge about the organisation 'all employees are expected to hold at least three different jobs in any given ten year period'
Dictionaries | Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995
Categories: Assimilation
Without audience cues, remote speakers must speak more carefully and are harder to understand [Bos et al 2009] although with clear sound this might not be significant [Jesse, Vrignaud, Massaro 2000]. What knock on effect might there be in preparing for this with more care, vs 'winging it' in person? {Ambiguity}
Bos & et al 2009 | Jesse, Vrignaud & Massaro 2000
Categories: Social
People tend to form subgroups of ''us'' and ''them'' with even reasonably small perceptions of differences and '' even if not explicit - favour people that they know. Relationships can be to groups rather than individuals. [Bos 2009, p21]. Introduces barriers to communication from outside, reduces barriers inside An extreme view of getting out of groupthink: Escaping or disengaging from radical tribes [kira harris 2010] {Tribalism} {Culture}
Bos 2009 p21 | kira & harris 2010
Categories: Time
Along with the relevant information will be information that is not, but may appear to be for at least some parts of the communication. It therefore consumes attention, communication, storage, and cognition. {Distraction} {Relevance} {Information To Noise ratio}
Distraction | Relevance | Information To Noise ratio
Categories: Time | Explicit Knowledge
When meaning of terms {Explicit Knowledge} is properly shared, then {time} and {Ambiguity} reduces ({reliability} increases). Different meanings generate misunderstandings and block communications. Where knowledge can be sensibly codified (eg technology support via [Earl 2001]) then we can publish and search and read using common search terms. When common categories are hard to determine, and/or when they are not completely shared, effects are harder to determine. [Baber et al 2007] describe a gap between formal codifying that knowledge architects intend, and the personal links that are more frequently used. Example: looking for work in the software industry. The differences between C# and Java languages are nearly trivial, it is the knowledge of the relevant libraries that are vital, yet job advertisements routinely ask for language knowledge rather than domain.
Explicit Knowledge | time | Ambiguity | reliability
Earl 2001 | Baber & et al 2007
Categories: Assessing
See eg [Kahneman & Tversky]
Categories: Barriers
eg [Hinds & Pfeffer 2003]
Categories: Method | Context | Bias
For example, the tendency to read only one newspaper {Bias} {Confirmation Bias} {Cliques} {Social Bubble}
Bias | Confirmation Bias | Cliques | Social Bubble
Quantity and time as related to ability to assess content. See also [Simon 1982] "models of bounded rationality vol 2" via [SAS 050] {Attention} {Heuristics} {Cognitive Load}
Attention | Heuristics | Cognitive Load
[Fransella & Bannister 1977] [Schroder et al 1967] [Wyer 1964] via [SAS 050] as Cognitive Complexity {Cognitive Capacity}
Fransella & Bannister 1977 | Schroder & et al 1967 | Wyer 1964 | SAS 50
Categories: Flexibility | Assimilation | Assessing
NB Too flexible = {Gullibility}! from [SAS 050]
Categories: Time | Quality | Method
Originally from learning [Sweller 1988] but now common term. [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011] Limits studied since eg [Miller 1956] the magic number 7 plus or minus 2, and the "Experience of Living in Cities" [Milgram 1970], and a comprehensive review by [Eppler& Mengis 2004] {Information Quantity}
Sweller 1988 | Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011 | Miller 1956 | Milgram 1970 | Eppler& & Mengis 2004
Categories: Proximity
I would split cognition: proximty in prior knowledge as in what i sknown about the situation, proximity in experience as in what is known about *similiar* siutations, and proximity in attitudes/values/cultures (social?) as in similarity of jargon, abstract concepts, attitudes. Cmopare software: proximity in awareness about this project, proximity in experience as socftware engineers, and proximity in large difference between eg Agile and 'well planned' advocates.
Categories:
Categories: Organisation | Social | Other
Inspired by [SAS 050] Collaborative Completeness {Intent} {Motivation} {Groupthink}
Intent | Motivation | Groupthink
Categories: Collaboration
A looser super-catagory of, eg, organisation structures in order to span across deliberate organisations and include ad-hoc, opportunity collaborations, etc
Categories: Collaboration
[SAS 050] term Collaborative Capacity [Eriksson 2009] candidate list of characteristics: "Coordination" {Culture} {Flexibility} {Motivation}
Culture | Flexibility | Motivation
Categories: Method | Organisation | Other
eg [Bos et al 2007] look at academic collaborations as part of a 'science of collaborations' study. Categories are characteristics in this list. In many cases the collaboration is explicitly founded around making decisions, and there are a number of ways of making distributed decisions (eg voting systems) see also [Rodriguez 2007]. These may be the aim of knowledge distribution mechanisms, for example in ''Social Decision Support System'' and ''Group Decision Support Systems'' (eg [Turoff et al 2002 via Rodriguez 2007]. ''Pick and mix'' participations [Rodriguez 2007] implies having policies or strategies that allow a way of switching between modes, eg dictatorship and participatory, as seen in military ops depending on circumstances. [Blankenship 2009] looked at a few different social structures and some of the different priorities and characteristics of them, which will affect which knowledge distribution mechanisms are appropriate. Suggests ''Communities of Practice'' as cross-task (and perhaps cross-companies?). 'Shared Instrument' where data is shared out from an instrument, [Bos et al 2007] Category of Collaboration: 'Open community contribution systems' where a research problem is attacked by the community [Bos et al 2007] 'virtual community of practice' where a research area is shared. ([Bos et al 2007]) also on-line virtual gaming teams ([Algesheimer et al 2010]) as ways of testing concepts in an 'easier' environment - can track and record interactions and outputs - mission success - are easier. Limited transfer to real world for same reasons 'Community Data System' where data is pooled by [Bos et al 2002]
Bos & et al 2007 | Rodriguez 2007 | Turoff & et al 2002 via Rodriguez 2007 | Rodriguez 2007 | Blankenship 2009 | Bos & et al 2007 | Bos & et al 2007 | Bos & et al 2007 | Algesheimer & et al 2010 | Bos & et al 2002
Categories: Method | Time | Organisation
Sharing takes effort time but reduces calendar time, up to a certain point and then it takes calendar time. See eg [Brooks 1995] "The Mythical Man Month" {Attention} {Resources}
Categories: Collaboration Arrangements | Collaboration Capacity | Colocation
Explaining the situation is important to trustworthiness in statements. This works both ways; if remote experts do not understand the local situation, their appreciation and advice will not be suitable. On the other hand, being unable to see can encourage devolving responsibility [Cramton et al 2007 p541] Plus distraction; if the remote observer is 'busy', that impacts communications, and in turn this can cause a view of uncommitment or incompetence. Disconnect between actual situation, expected behaviour, and perception of actual behaviour. eg "why is the speaker late?" who gave directions, who is telling you who did, etc. Technology can provide ways of communicating but without the social and background cues that provide background; ie, enablers but with unpleasant side effects. Assuming that remote workers situations are similar to own. [Szulanski et al 2004] call this {Causal Ambiguity} and declares in rather roundabout language that it strongly affects the recipients trust in the source, and so in turn the effectiveness of the communication. [Bazarova & Walther 2009] say that remote communications can lead to ''biased attributions'' that ''impede effective communication and collaboration in a variety of settings'' {Reference data sets} (commonly viewed documents, whiteboards, numerical, maps, etc ) to reduce this. Horizons available (eg [Kurapati 2012]: Perception (See), Prescription (modify), Participation (do)) where things are so complex that you cannot expect to see the full situation, or the full situation of other people.
Causal Ambiguity | Reference data sets
Cramton & et al 2007 p541 | Szulanski & et al 2004 | Bazarova & Walther 2009 | Kurapati 2012
Categories: Method | Context | Bias
For example, the tendency to read only one newspaper {Cognitive Bias} {Cognitive Bubble} {Confirmation Bias} {Cliques} {Social Bubble} {Source Availability}
Cognitive Bias | Cognitive Bubble | Confirmation Bias | Cliques | Social Bubble | Source Availability
Categories: Organisation | Social
Many studies show local face to face collaboration is better (faster, more trustworthy) than remote eg [Rocco et al 2001] [Sieloff 1999] [Cramton et al 2007] [Altschuller and Benbunan 2010] [Teasli et al 2002 via Bos et al 2009]. The term 'Colocation' appears frequently as the key element for trust and knowledge transfer (as opposed to fact transfer), see eg [Altschuller & Benbunan 2010], [Steiloff 1999] about background listening and low barriers to short dialogue exchanges, [Teasli et al 2002 via Bos et al 2009] find double productivity in locating a software team in the same room, and many of the other descriptions here about barriers (eg situation invisibility) that appear when we disperse. Social visibility affects uncertainty of reputation, eg [Rocco 2001]. {Physical proximity} matters more than mutual interests [Kraut etc 1988] Yet as [Dabbish et al 2012] show when looking at GitHub developers (and [Bardzell 2008] show in WoW) there are examples of people developing social bonds and interactions through quite limited UI interactions. Anecdotally (in)famously some engineers will happily write emails to those sitting next to them to have time to prepare thoughts, and allow each other to deal with it at convenience rather than interrupt a thoughtful moment. [Wilson 2008] discusses ways of making people ''feel'' close while being remote. Interestingly [Bos et al 2009] found no effective difference in performance between collocated players and distributed players; distributed players set up their own subgroup when they were left low-priority from the collocated players . [Olson & OLson 2000] studied which factors influenced distributed collaboration, and later [Zimmerman, Olson Olson & Bos 2008] give a checklist of 'success factors' for distributed scientists based on their work. This characteristic has a set of categories: people located around the same desks are 'more' colocated than those in the same open plan office, who are 'more' colocated than those on the same floor in different rooms, etc {Physical Proximity}
Physical proximity | Physical Proximity
Rocco & et al 2001 | Sieloff 1999 | Cramton & et al 2007 | Altschuller & Benbunan 2010 | Teasli & et al 2002 via Bos & et al 2009 | Altschuller & Benbunan 2010 | Steiloff 1999 | Teasli & et al 2002 via Bos & et al 2009 | Rocco 2001 | Kraut & etc 1988 | Dabbish & et al 2012 | Bardzell 2008 | Wilson 2008 | Bos & et al 2009 | Olson & OLson 2000 | Zimmerman, Olson, Olson, et al 2008
Categories: Organisation
Knowledge has value, and so there may be some reluctance to give it away for free (consider for example medieval Guilds) {Barriers}
Categories: Social
Inspired by derived from [SAS 050] Commitment/Loyalty {Motivation}
Categories: Proximity | Intent
An indication of how close the 'collaborators' are in aligning to a mutual goal; the scale (by Salt & Hill, it appears) goes something like this: {Conflict} <--> Compete <--> Cooperate <--> Collaborate ..and moving up and down the scale changes the heights and types of barriers to communication. Note that {conflict} is not always bad See eg [SAS 050] Consistency of Command Intent which may also be modified by how well the intent is communicated {Intent}
Categories: Time | Method | Context
Strong overlap with {Codifying}; use of common labels and meanings. See eg [Sauer 2006 et al section 3.1] [Zastrow 2001] {Speech Acts} {Codifying}
Codifying | Speech Acts | Codifying
Sauer, 2006, section, et al | Zastrow 2001
Categories: Knowledge Transfer
Simulation suggests that more communication links can slow knowledge distribution due to more talking and less doing. [Holton 2001] also describes how adding another communication option (web conferencing) to email and voicemail added 'search time', when looking for information in another place. Also dialogue then fragments between different means, and the conversation becomes hard to follow and revisit
Common term {Bias} {Groupthink} {Cliques}
Bias | Groupthink | Cliques
Categories: Organisation | Barriers
Organisations restrict, deliberately or by accident, the entry of others into them and this filters what knowledge is available for import. For example, the military selects young people for fitness, certain kinds of attitude and aptitude, and these are then the population from which all military posts are drawn (there is also some self-selection by the population; not all people will apply). Intelligence services then downselect further using security checks, and this further reduces the cognitive and experience range available to analyst teams. Military career and promotion incentives means that experience analysts tend to be promoted out of the analyst teams, leaving the analysis to relatively junior staff with limited and similar life experience. Similarly, though to a less extent, academies tend to select for exam (and academic!) proficiency, and most posts are then filled from people who have come through the academic pipeline. Contrast with engineering projects, where teams are assembled and then scattered, strongly mixing skills and experience across the organisations. Somewhat {anti:Churn}. Actually contains two points: reduced pools of expertise and knowledge due to selection, and reduced transfer of knowledge by isolated working practice.]
Categories: Discourse Analysis
Stories that become 'truths' within communities as it fits their biases, and so is not challenged (not quite groupthink, but related). See eg political myths (BBC R4) {Groupthink}
Common term {Education} {Training} {Mentoring} {Quality Assurance}
Education | Training | Mentoring | Quality Assurance
Categories: Motivation
[Dewey 2008] emphasises getting inside decision cycles to do better than your competition in order to survive - ie being faster. Competition between groups '' war-fighting or commercial '' drives knowledge distribution across barriers as the groups seek to know their enemies eg [Fahey 1998]. Knowing your opposition also needs to be part of the collaboration knowledge set. In the candidate characteristic list of [Eriksson 2009] {Incentives} {Competitive Intelligence}
Incentives | Competitive Intelligence
Dewey 2008 | Fahey 1998 | Eriksson 2009
[Dictionaries] [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011] [SAS 050] {Uncertainty}
Dictionaries | Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011 | SAS 50
Categories: Method | Quality | Time
eg [Jasimuddin 2008] using several methods, both hard (explicit knowledge, information) and soft (face to face for tacit knowledge, etc). via Jasimuddin to [Scarbrough, 1999] [McAdam and McCreedy, 2000] [Desouza and Evaristo, 2003] [Swan and Scarborough, 2001] [Pan and Scarbrough, 1999] {Cognitive Capacity} {Quality} {Response}
Cognitive Capacity | Quality | Response
Jasimuddin 2008 | Scarbrough 1999 | McAdam & McCreedy 2000 | Desouza & Evaristo 2003 | Swan & Scarborough 2001 | Pan & Scarbrough 1999
Categories: Method | Quality | Social | Other
A logistical/deliberate concealment [Collins 2001]; for example an author does not want to reveal all the tricks of the trade to all, or for example journals provide insufficient space for detail, data, code, etc. {Relevance} {Uncertainty} {Completeness} {Commercial Value}
Relevance | Uncertainty | Completeness | Commercial Value
Informatic rather than social measure; an aspect of trustworthiness. Explicit marking includes the NATO/Admiralty and 5x5x5 codes {Reputation} {Trust}
Categories: Quality | Trust | Quality Assurance
When unravelling a picture due to new information, the confidence in that new piece of information should (in principle, rationally) need to be compared with other information. That confidence should (again, in principle) be trackable so that the evidence chain can be checked and proved, especially where new information has strong iconoclastic properties. See eg Chain of Evidence [Dictionaries] [Common Term] {Provenance Assurance}
Categories:
see eg Words of Estimative Probabiliy. But also what 'operational' means in the Challenger Shuttle accident.
Categories: Bias
[Dictionaries] "Cognitive Immunization" is A term used by psychologists to refer to the ways we voluntarily block out ideas and data that contradict our existing conclusions and situation understanding. see eg [Wood & Gabby 2003] (Note that this is an 'edge' topic in this study, interfacing with the field of cognitive psychology) {Epistemic Bubble} {Cognitive Bubble}
Epistemic Bubble | Cognitive Bubble
Dictionaries | Wood & Gabby 2003
Categories: Social | Organisation
A share in decision making/ownership encourages employees to check that knowledge is properly transferred [Barret 2004] [Thomas-Hunt 2003] via [Lucas 2006 p19]. {Attitude}
Barret 2004 | Thomas-Hunt 2003 | Lucas 2006 p19
Categories: Social | Organisation | Method
Deliberate conflict can cause friction to force discussion and introspection, instead of forcing discussion by policy directives ("red team this") that can be ignored or mis-monitored, eg [Ã?Â?gland 2009 p10]. See also [Burnett 1993] as a way of putting off or delaying consensus in order to force continued discussion and avoid over-quick groupthink consensus. Contrast with {Thinking Too Long } Introducing IT 'stirs things up' [Checkland & Holwell 1998 p7 via Jones 2001], and [Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995] talk about the usefulness of confusion to encourage reexamination of {assumptions}. [O'Leary 2006] discusses the value of dissenters in government. Forcing people out of their groupthink comfort zones, ie interrupting the {assumptions} typical of {groupthink} [Johnson 2001]
Thinking Too Long | assumptions | assumptions | groupthink
Ã?Â?gland 2009 p10 | Burnett 1993 | Checkland & Holwell 1998 p7 via Jones 2001 | Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995 | O'Leary 2006 | Johnson 2001
Categories: Social | Method | Other
Degree to which new information matches previous and other information (consistent meaning, consistent structure, presented in the same format Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011) {Integrity}
Categories:
Suitability of the property we are measuring; how well it represents what we think it does [Costa 2012] [Sechrest 1984] [AQA 2008] although [Michael]?s teaching materials suggest a concept closer to Value Validity as described here.
Costa 2012 | Sechrest 1984 | AQA 2008 | Michael
Categories: Social | Method | Organisation
{Interruptions} {distractions}
Categories: Collaboration | Situation
Categories: Context
Reverse of [SAS 050] Field Independence {Flexibility}
Context Information Quality characterizes the intended use of information and indicates that the use of dimensions relates to a specific context. It measures the extent to which information is relevant and useful. Obviously the user is the main subject involved in context-dependent IQ assessment. Based on the context-related evaluation, users evaluate the relevance of information in a particular context. [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011] [Wang & Strong] {Information Quality}
Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011 | Wang & Strong
Contrasting knowledge sets when too different or too close: ''little learning occurs when two agents become so closely aligned in their knowledge sets that their knowledge becomes redundant'' [Mowery, Oxley and Silverman, 1996] [Ahuja and Katila, 2001]. No surprise there. {Surprise} {Iconoclastic Sausage}
Surprise | Iconoclastic Sausage
Mowery, Oxley & Silverman 1996 | Ahuja & Katila 2001
Categories: Collaboration | Knowledge Transfer | Situation
"Cybernetics" is possibly an obsolete term referring to control and comms between people and machine See eg [Ashby]
Categories: Organisation | Context
Control & Monitoring execution of policies; feedback control loops (quality assurance of strategy implementation, and/or need to modify strategy) eg [Ã?Â?gland 2009]. It is not sufficient to believe that high quality is there or improvement continuous if the measures tell you otherwise, or there is no measurable feedback (''fake'' quality). Importance that quality measures are appropriate (and appropriately onerous...). {Information Assurance}
Categories: Other
Facts vs expertise: [Bray 2010] tends to talk in quite low level detail about language as a means to exchange information/facts, rather than to aggregate expertise or knowledge, especially derived from tacit {Tacit Knowledge}
Categories: Organisation | Social
Derived & Inspired by [SAS 050] {Collaboration Alignment} {Incentives}
Collaboration Alignment | Incentives
Categories: Method | Assessing
Competitive Hypothesis Testing etc without applying skill; seems like rigour but isn't. Inspection can fail due to social and professional incentives.
Inspired by alternative hypothesis testing from eg the Quick Wins handbook [DIA 2013] and Heuer's Structured analyatic Techniques [Heuer 2010]
Categories: Organisation | Communication
Cross networks of knowledge. (for example, a company has task/project reporting management lines, and there are also communication routes through skill specialist groups such as cryptographers) Matrix approaches - cross discipline expertise bragging about success rather than changing views eg [Sieloff]
Categories: Social | Context | Culture | Proximity
Differences in viewpoints that are built into underlying assumptions Boundaries can be recognised and identified. [Hauke 2010] [Riesch 2010] gives us some types of transfer barriers. See also [Giddens 1984] (Structuration) plus also pretty much anything on relativism and post-modernism. We don't have to be fully relativist to understand that, when it comes to understand complex systems / wicked problems (as opposed to 'solid' physics) the impact of culture, language, trust, etc can become significant Culture: Background social attitudes that affect (and are affected by) motivations and habits for communicating and the ways knowledge is understood, communicated, valued and framed. see much of [Yie Li 2005], also [De Long and Fahey 2000], and for an extreme effect, [Gladwell 2010] on plane crashes. {Boundaries} {Barriers} {Tribal} {Cliques} Transferring knowledge between cultures can raise simple problems with misunderstanding common language eg [Hill 2010] or more complex framing problems eg [Li p23]. Having different cultures contribute to assessments helps to identify assumptions, but common cultures with background knowledge and context reduces the explanation load. {Assumptions}
Boundaries | Barriers | Tribal | Cliques | Assumptions
Hauke 2010 | Riesch 2010 | Giddens 1984 | Yie & Li 2005 | De, Long & Fahey 2000 | Gladwell 2010 | Hill 2010 | Li p23
Categories: Collaboration
[Burton & Obel 2004 p140] Lists from [Koys & Decotiis] some features of culture, eg autonomy, pressure, coehsion, support, recognition, fairness, but some of these seem to bleed over to more explicit characteristics. They separate out 'climate' as different [Burton & Obel 2004 p142] from [Zammuto & Krackover 1991] including things such as conflict, trust, rewards, credibiliyt, scapegoating, etc. External culture/climate/environment as well, as this affects motivations and presuser.
Burton & Obel 2004 p140 | Koys & Decotiis | Burton & Obel 2004 p142 | Zammuto & Krackover 1991
[SAS 050] as Awareness Currency {Timeliness}
Categories: Quality
Some possible issues about accuracy vs correctness to do with human absolute error. A clock is accurate if it measures seconds very well, but may be incorrect according to the time zone or due to setting the clock wrong. A gun may be accurate but pointing at an incorrect target. Number of digits to right of decimal place [Wolfram] (Essentially unknowable, as we cannot know the real value. We only know different measured values, or calculated values from theory and other measured values) {Quality} {Information Accuracy}
Quality | Information Accuracy
Categories: Data Quality
However bear in mind Dekker's points about Situation Awareness, that even comparing against exercise worlds can be tricky as the values placed on what is relevant, important, etc, might be different between exercised and exercising staff, and 'correct' for both in idfferent circumstances.
Categories: Quality
Definitions vary; differences between measurements of the same [ISO 5725] [NPL 2010], number of significant decimals [Wolfram], number of significant figures (Computing; single precision, double precision, etc). {Quality} {Prediction}
Categories: Knowledge Transfer
Categories: Quality
{Quality}
Repeatability describes the agreement within sets of measurements ...where the same person uses the same equipment in the same way under the same conditions (including place and, as far as possible, time). [NPL 2010] {Quality}
Reproducibility describes the agreement within a set of measurements ...where different people, equipment, methods or conditions are involved. [NPL 2010] {Quality}
Categories: Quality
Degree of measurable change between values. Eg pixels on an image can have very precise values between precise boundaries, but the value is 'smeared' between those boundaries. {Quality}
Categories: Timeliness
Dynamic in that the workflow can be seen as quicker or longer, depending on how well it is run ("Getting inside the enemy's decision cycle"). Contrast with effective surprise [Jim Storr 2009] Also [Storr 2009 p116] points out that cycles can introduce delays, and that the modern US army takes 36-48 hours to compelte a cycle compared to 12 in WW2 despite better technology (though there are different constraints now, including H&S) {OODA Loop}
Jim & Storr 2009 | Storr 2009 p116
Categories: Roles | Team Arrangement
Dedicated Embedded Information Operators advocated by [Pickle 2006]; as knowledge distribution requires dedicated acquired skills and effort and this leaves subject matter epxerts free (more {Attention}) to spend more time on the subject matter. See also, for example, British Army platoon headquarters which have dedicated radio operators to manage the radio and background messages, leaving the commander free to command.
Categories: Method
Safe but useless [Dictionaries]. For example: (1) humans are mortal, and (2) I am a human, therefore (conclusion) I am mortal.
Categories: Organisation
''Distance'' in hops between event and assessor. See also Understanding Information Age Warfare {Indirection}
Categories: Organisation
eg [Liddy 2005] and originally [Krulak 1999] re Strategic Corporal. {Alternate Practice}
Deliberate ''sharing'' sessions ie putting time aside to teach and train and talk ([Oluikpe 2012] '' not sure if implemented/tested). Trade against time out from assessing
Categories: Information Transfer
Categories: Method
Discourse includes Disagreement: eg [Bray 2010] (denial of reported facts, or propositions). Needs a way to resolve disagreements and conflict in order to transfer ''correct'' knowledge rather than simply a polarised subset. {Conflict}
Categories: Managing Wicked Complexity
When {Information Overload} becomes the case, or to reduce {Cognitive Load} in order to allow {Attention} to be directed at other things, the larger picture may be simplified by discarding or making broad assumptions of elements of the larger picture. Ideally such elements should be delegated (ie {Mission Command} ) instead, depending on the collaboration cognitive availability.
Information Overload | Cognitive Load | Attention | Mission Command
Categories: Method | Assessment
Psychological term for how we build understanding/knowledge from what people tell us. Outline given by Ian [Parker 2013]
Categories: Method
inspired by [SAS 050]
Categories: Expression
The natural counterpart to {Absorptive Capacity}
Effort on KM is not effort on task: "even as web introduce more info, did nothing to expand our limited attention capacity" [Sieloff]. activities drain a pool of attention [Endslay]. Sharing knowledge takes time, and if time to produce is paramount, it doesn't get shared [Sieloff] Ability to publish: --> huge increase in publishing and therefore increase in available info to everyone else, and vanity publishing, time/attention directed to publishing. [Sieloff], back to bombarded by uncoordinated updates. [Clauswitz] "the man with the telegraph in his back" and similarly [Kramer 1971] [Hurley 2007] [Larsen 2009] [Campbell 1999] Distraction is not only by more information; sensory overload (loud, unusual and distressing visuals, etc) also interferes with communication skills and reduces the pool of {attention} available [Timmons 2009]
Sieloff | Endslay | Sieloff | Sieloff | Clauswitz | Kramer 1971 | Hurley 2007 | Larsen 2009 | Campbell 1999 | Timmons 2009
Categories: Organisation
Policies & Strategies must also be distributed as they have to sit within, for example, distributed legal frameworks (eg [Golich & Pinelli 1997]). [Lepak 2009] on the other hand is keen to make strategies universal (at least, across the whole army organisation). Relating to granularity then, how ''far'' should a strategy reach, and how does it overlap and interact and feedback with others.
Golich & Pinelli 1997 | Lepak 2009
Categories: Method | Organisation
Other diffusion models: Disease diffusion, and practice diffusion (via [Lenox 2008]), may provide useful models
Categories: Routines
A kind of {routines} or templates possibly {anti:Flexibility} of strategies: [Storr 2009] argues that the British Army did very well without doctrine, and introducing doctrine has reduced its ability to adjust (opposite of agile) and it is still struggling to adjust. {Education}
routines | ANTI:Flexibility | Education
Categories: Learning | Organization flexibility
Term coined by [Argyris 1976] to represent how learning is not just about the situation under study, but also the practices and {routines} and {Organisation structure} and {Culture} and so on used to approach dealing with it. In particular for problems that are poorly defined, so the approach to the solution might change as the problem is better understood
routines | Organisation structure | Culture
Categories:
generated by the market garden validation exercise. Dutch evidence dramatically weighted very low due to {Past Performance}
Categories:
From the Operation market Garden study
Categories: Method | Organisation | Other
Tasks and workflows change rapidly and this has knock on effects on knowledge transfer factors [Sauer et al p2]. Strategies & Policies should be created bearing in this mind, so they do not have to be redeveloped each time the tasks change Although sometimes change of direction require change of strategies - eg HP moving from low volume test instruments to large scale global personal computers [Sieloff] {Anti:Routines} {Anti:Doctrine}
Categories: Organisation
A situation that forms {groupthink}
Categories: Context
What has already been taught and what can be taught to provide context and theory, as opposed to 'reports of facts' (inspired by [SAS 050])
Categories: Method | Assessment
Where the first thought of solution makes other solutions hard to find. Bilalic, Mcleod & Gobet
Categories: Method
Converting {Tacit Knowledge} to {Explicit Knowledge} (see eg [Nonaka 1991]) Also {Interview}s with prisoners, deserters who might be reluctant; cross checking etc to improve {Trustworthiness} of information from sources that are not normally trusted.
Tacit Knowledge | Explicit Knowledge | Interview | Trustworthiness
Categories: Social
Emergency override - eg Shorko FIlms (via [Earl]) where people share lifelong accumulated knowledge to save a working community. {Motivation}
The ability to sit back and take an overview, using experience, rather than just do-ing, does not always result in consistent ''rational'' outcomes. [Rich 2004] describes increasingly loud and inconsistent lobbying across think tanks studying the same subject. {Thinking Too Long}
Categories: Communication
Adding ephemeral information to official information (eg post-it notes) to avoid persistance. (eg Parting Shots Ep 3)# {ANTI:Persistent} A
Categories: Method | Context | Bias
Categories: Uncertainty
Introduction by [O'Hagan 2004] Don't know about what's uncertain [Palmer 2010]
Categories: Quality
Whether at the measurement or due to mistakes in processing
Categories:
Categories: Situation
Scenarios and background material that provide an 'exercise true world' to compare 'assessed world' to. Beware [Dekkers] comments that there is no real 'true' world for complex value-laden assessments. {Online Games} for example provides collaboration environments that may be suitable for experiment and study and are cheaper to run and monitor than real world exercises [Bardzell et al 2008] [Savery 2010] . Also dedicated team-work games such as C3Fire and Artemis spaceship bridge
Dekkers | Bardzell & et al 2008 | Savery 2010
Categories: Information Quality
Expectation Information Quality captures the user-perceived quality of information products in terms of subjective IQ dimensions such as objectivity and believability. Whereas context IQ measures the objective use of information, expectation IQ measures the subjective element of IQ usages. Obviously, the expectation dimension is subjective and can only be evaluated by humans and thus might result in varying outcomes in different IQ assessments. [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011]
Categories: Knowledge | Context
Shared Expectations: World of Warcraft players [Bardzell et al 2008] have shared expectations of reasonably well defined roles (tank, healer, etc) that enables fast collaborations between relative strangers {Intent} eg 11 men 1 mind [DePuy 1958] or [Bardzell et al 2008] on online gaming teams Something about {Trustworthiness} to do with vulnerability to expected behaviour...
Bardzell & et al 2008 | DePuy 1958 | Bardzell & et al 2008
Categories: Prior Knowledge
What has already been experienced - which can be good (correct context) and bad (different context in apparently same one)
Categories:
Categories: Colocation | Physical Proximity | Liaison | Team Arrangement | Heterogeneity
[Chhabra 2011]''s simulation/model suggests that the cost of providing expertise can result in better aggregate returns, for general markets. Similar with most project management teams that have a lead engineer (responsible for quality & calendar time) paired with the project manager (responsible for money & calendar time) to have the discussions about trade-offs. Military platoon command colocates experienced sergeant with junior officer. Future questions for research: expertise in different areas and the effects [British army doctrine]
Chhabra 2011 | British, army & doctrine
Categories: Prior Knowledge
[Hinds & Pfeffer 2003] experts tend to have conceptual simplified models that are coherent; continuing failure to do expertise/knowledge transfer (terms are mixed). Problem articulating back to concrete; difficult to find common ground. Difficult to remember back what it was like. Some expertise is codifiable and some is tacit; the codifiable is easier (eg organising pizza cooking) and some less so (hand tossing dough) Intermediate experts are better at explaining [Hinds & Pfeffer 2003]
Hinds & Pfeffer 2003 | Hinds & Pfeffer 2003
Categories: Picture
A feature of expertise is that you know the bounds of your knowledge (eg Analects [Confucius] "Real knowledge is to know the extent of your ignorance") Boundaries between {explicit knowledge} and explicit ignorance may be clear {Vroomfondel ambiguity} or may not
explicit knowledge | Vroomfondel ambiguity
Categories: Picture | Knowledge
Tacit vs explicit knowledge eg [Polanyi 1962]; explicit is codified, transmittable in formal, systematic language, while {NOT:Tacit Knowledge} is hard to formalize and communicate. In practice these are not distinct categotries; tacit knowledge for example can be made explicit by asking the right questions. [Armour] models this is as a level of ignorance Degrees of explicitness; [Sauer 2006] talk about the problems of codifying knowledge (or information...) in ways that they can be compared (Sauer section 3.1) consistently (problems with inconsistent data sets) and appropriately (problems with different kinds of data)
Polanyi 1962 | Armour | Sauer 2006
Categories: Knowledge Transfer
Categories: Roles | Motivation
Behaviour that is discretionary and contributory; eg contributing to organisation knowledge shares, routing information rather than holding, etc. extra role behaviour [SAS 050] and [Moorman, Niehoff & Organ 1993] {Motivation} common goals, etc
SAS 50 | Moorman, Niehoff & Organ 1993
Categories: Colocation
Has interesting effects; both introduces non-informatic biases, yet seems to be vital to establish trust. Less worse with than without However, [Dabbish et al 2012] show when looking at GitHub developers (and Bardzell 2008 show in WoW) there are examples of people developing social bonds and interactions through quite limited UI interactions.
Categories:
Characteristics that cause failure (eg [Lam 2010]) but bear in mind the wrong characteristics may be identified (eg Hinge factors [Durschied 1999]) {Superstitious Learning} {Causal ambiguity}
Superstitious Learning | Causal ambiguity
Categories: Assessing | Assimilation | Tribal Myth | Social Bubble
Deliberately faked, but also clickbait. Propensity to pass news around that conforms to bias. See also {Tribal Myth}
Categories:
When KPIs are used not only to report performance but as the measures of group performance, then groups and individuals will focus on the easier of modifying the reporting and changing work practice to change the figures. For example, if you want to reduce overheads you might tell people to reduce booking to overhead codes; in which case teams will have incentives to book to sales codes, which is dodgy practice (inflates prices? No because overheads get charge to customers anyway) and doesn't indicate better productivity. Reporting lines now corrupted and not accurate or trustable
Categories:
Categories: Other
Self re-inforcing feedbacks on search filters and news feeds, where preferred items (clicked on) change the way that future searches and news feeds return results. [Pariser 2011]
Categories:
Categories:
Adjusting behaviour to fit changing environment [Colman 2003] [Dictionaries] Adjusting work process and/or organisation [Power to the Edge 2003] {Response Time} {Assessment} {Cognitive Flexibility} {Structure Flexibility}
Response Time | Assessment | Cognitive Flexibility | Structure Flexibility
Colman 2003 | Dictionaries | Power, to, the, et al 2003
Categories:
Categories:
Information does not normally 'flow' across intelligent nodes; it is assimilated and transformed
Categories:
Inspired by {Folksonomy}. Can act as enablers to the speakers to convey ideas more quickly, and barriers to express those ideas in and out of the folkabulary. Likely to overlap; eg programmers vs managers, in one team vs another team.
Categories: Common language
[Common Term]
Categories:
Slow incremental change rather than objective; eg millikan's experiments [ref?]; Conforming 'mostly', fear of radical [Feynam's Cargo Cult address to caltech 1974]
ref? | Feynam's, Cargo, Cult, et al 1974
Categories:
Skill and Expertise Fade applies to both institutions and individuals, as institutions lose individuals with skills to other institutions. Some apply to both, for example in maintaining skills for rarely used activities (such as Nuclear reactors, see "Managing Nuclear Knowledge" [IAEA 2006] "Fast Reactor Knowledge Preservation" [IAEA 2008] and [UKHMG_DECC 2015] {Organisation Memory}
IAEA 2006 | IAEA 2008 | UKHMG_DECC 2015
Categories:
''issues of trust rarely torpedo today''s collaborations. Most collaborators expect and forgive lapses in judgement''????��?���¦'' [EIU 2008]
Categories:
Words don't always work well; see maps and picture and diagrams [Ziman p45]. Pointing, handling and showing [Collins 2001, p72]
Categories:
Categories:
Formal Language is a form of captured knowledge (eg Bray's controlled language [Bray] ) but there are problems here with change once implemented; if you are not knowledgeable about it, then changing it can have unforeseen consequences.
Categories:
Affects sharing [Blankenship 2009]
Categories:
Deliberately excluded for this study {Quality Assurance}
Categories: Transformation
Categories:
What next? [Baiget 2009] asks if we are building our values into the automatic systems to a stage where we cannot easily adjust them as they become more powerful. This is a rather liberal political paper, but the question remains interesting.
Categories: Situation
Games as useful places to examine collaborations as the exercise world is known and collaborators are already motivated eg [Savery 2010] [Bardzell et al 2008]
Savery 2010 | Bardzell & et al 2008
Categories:
Categories: Boundaries
Country & State boundaries (eg [Gobey 2003] ) {Boundaries}
Categories: Proximity
Geographic proximity can help by improving interactions eg [Townsend] I think, but hinder due to lock in [Boschma 2005]. A higher scale of {Physical Proximity}
Categories:
Intent and Goals and Objectives as ways of focussing attention and reducing distraction
Some barriers to communication help to reduce clutter. Not all barriers are bad. The quality of the filter is important, to leave few clutter in and not throw away too much useful {Filters} {Barriers}
Categories:
Categories:
Admiralty Code, Uncertainty in Assessments [Kent 1964] [Kesselman 2008]
Categories:
Categories: Organisation structure
(Not quite the right term) Sizes of groups (social, tribal, incentived) that are good at reorganising internally but bad at communicating outside [Szulanski 1996 via Lenox 2008] [Blankenship 2009]. Crossing boarders: Knowledge in new contexts can yield important new insights [Simon 1985] [Lakhani 2007]. Review or broad: [Mclaughlin] talks about reviewing knowledge implementation strategies; so there is a higher level strategy. End to end connectivity: eg Mclaughlin. (opinion from a survey). However compare and contrast with supply chains ("I pencil" [Read 1958]), and on the other other hand, the 'waves' issues in supply chains. Some knowledge connected across some visibility of the supply chain will make it faster, cheaper.
Szulanski 1996 via Lenox 2008 | Blankenship 2009 | Simon 1985 | Lakhani 2007 | Mclaughlin | Read 1958
Categories: Community Bias
[Rich 2004] describes increasingly loud and inconsistent lobbying across think tanks studying the same subject despite being able to sit back, take an overview, and draw on considerable experience. Strong and early polarisation that results in highly opposing conclusions from the same data can be seen in many popular debates. [Jaynes 1995 p15] points out that this happens even when individuals are reasoning using probability theory ? ?the logic of science?
Categories:
Not always social; the degrees to which team members influence each other. Eg too many experts on a particular thing may not get a good answer on another thing
Categories: Tacit Knowledge | Organisation
Particularly around interactions (teams that have worked well). [Erden Kroch & Nonaka 2008] suggests levels or qualities of tacit knowledge in groups (but it works for individuals) starting with Aristotles three: episteme (facts), techne (basic how to use it) phronesis (what best solutions are suitable for what problems) and Improvisation (where the group copes with unexpected events and fast changes) [Szulanski 1996] also talks about the Good {Stickiness} of team tacit knowledge that means that hiring teams complete can be better than hiring particular individuals from it.
Erden, Kroch & Nonaka 2008 | Szulanski 1996
Categories:
Common term, see [Dictionaries] . Groupthink/shared views/consensus: where knowledge distribution is warped by the social pressures of the group, and/or where the group is formed in the first place by the knowledge sets. [Lucas 2006] asserts that the shared views of the group are expressed/an input to the ways they share knowledge. [Meyer 2009] talks about how when knowledge sets are too different it is hard to transfer any, and when they are too similar there is nothing new. [Johnsonin] has some case studies. Is groupthink failures 'worth it' for other benefits? [Storr p117] Related also to {Group Polarisation}
Dictionaries | Lucas 2006 | Meyer 2009 | Johnsonin | Storr p117
Categories:
{Anti:Bias} Inspired by Collaboration Completeness, see also [Handy 1989] for Homogeneity. NB very much not the same as diversity of appearance, or Physical Diversity, as some articles seem to confuse the two {Heterogeneity}
Categories: Assessing | Assessment
Trained-in rationality requires appropriate training; 'proper' objective thinking takes too long in the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous military environment [Williams 2010] Marked as Impulsivity in [SAS-050], seen as {Anti:rationality}. Based on previous experience either personal or group {Recognition Priming}, so usefulness partly depends on whether current situation is like previous. The "Thinking fast" element of "Thinking Fast and Slow" [Kahneman 2011] suggests that assessing heuristically is faster {Timeliness} but more prone to misleading {Bias}
ANTI:rationality | Recognition Priming | Timeliness | Bias
Williams 2010 | SAS-050 | Kahneman 2011
Categories:
Categories:
A key part of the traditional {Scientific Method} ; check your theory against the real world. Lots of issues with this; traditionally the hypothesis is supposed to be formed first, but there is no effective difference between getting the data first and then forming a hypothesis from it, rather than throwing away a hypothesis that is refuted by the data and forming a new hypothesis afterwards. (example with plotting x=2y). See also [Rozeboom 2008]
Categories:
Information that destroys pictures; see also {Surprise} [Salt, conversation]
Categories:
Knowledge vs Ignorance: knowing or not knowing how to find out what you need to know. What questions to ask.. What ways of finding out what questions to ask . . what to find out - what question to ask - ignorance level 4 [Armour 2000] - eg yes minister s1 e7 solihull project. [Rumsfeld] [Faryumadi]
Armour 2000 | Rumsfeld | Faryumadi
Categories:
Information Technology to support IM with external databases, conversation tracking etc
Categories: Assessing
Bishops and Generals live longer than Curates and Corporals, but that's because you need to be older to reach being a Bishop or a General, and young people who are Curates and Corporals become something else when they are older. Originally from [Farr 1885] and more recently [Hanley & Foster 2014] with some ways to avoid it. Possibly related to {Survivor Bias}
Farr 1885 | Hanley & Foster 2014
Categories:
Categories: Culture | Motivation
Distributing knowledge is not free (and may cost personal power, etc), there need to be incentives to do so [Lucas & Ogilve 2006], either explicit (recognition, pay, promotion) or social rewards or shared ownership [Barret 2004, Thomas Hunt 2003 via Lucas & Ogilve 2006 p19]. Incentives vital to aligning individual employees with corporate goals [Sherif 1958 via Lucas] as otherwise individuals are likely to revert to habit. Lucas & Ogilve's questionniare results however suggest that incentives have little impact, which may be due to 'lack of motivation' (which is odd, as the lack of motivation is what the incentives are meant to overcome) Also [Szulanski 1996] finds {Stickiness} is down to other things than {Motivation} {Motivation} & Incentives are possibly parts of {culture}.
Stickiness | Motivation | Motivation | culture
Lucas & Ogilve 2006 | Barret, 2004, Thomas, et al 2003 via Lucas & Ogilve 2006 p19 | Sherif 1958 via Lucas | Szulanski 1996
Categories: Proximity
For example reference sites [Sieloff] which the engineer can go to to find out where to find the details
Categories:
Unsafe but necessary [Dictionaries]
Categories:
Categories:
Ambiguous term; see eg [Schrader 1983] for a collection of hundreds of definitions categorised in various ways {Communication}
Categories:
Categories: Method
Common (if somewhat ambiguous) term [Dictionaries] In this case applies particularly to {Information Assurance} as a way of ensuring the {Information Quality} of the assessment or fused data. This means that dubious information can be suitably compared with higher quality information. This is not be confused with ensuring high quality which is the drive in commercial manufacturing although similar techniques can be used (see eg [Garvin 1987])
Information Assurance | Information Quality
Categories:
(Combine with collation/collection bias)
Categories: Context
What information can and is shared, what cannot due to language/security/distance/means {Shared (open source etc)}
Categories: Information
Categories:
(Candidate characteristic list [Eriksson 2009] ) [But information doesn't flow]
Eriksson 2009 | But, information, doesn't, et al
Categories:
Managing the information that informs the picture; organising it so it's easy to reference (diagrams and maps on walls) and reduce memory load {Logging} {Reference}
Categories:
Various types and effects reviewed and summarised in [Eppler & Mengis 2004], Note that not just the quantity, but qualities of the information affect load, eg complexity, ambiguity that needs to be resolved, the ease of assimilation, surprise (or novelty), uncertainty that needs filled with possibilities, etc. [Sutcliffe et al 2009] also consider other overloading aspects that are beyond just the quantity of data. touched on as a motivation to manage knowledge better by vairous including [Sherehiy & Karwowski 2006] and [Li 2005]. Part of, at times {Cognitive Load} {Attention} {Surprise} {Cognitive Load}
Cognitive Load | Attention | Surprise | Cognitive Load
Eppler & Mengis 2004 | Sutcliffe & et al 2009 | Sherehiy & Karwowski 2006 | Li 2005
Common (if ambiguous) term; see [Dictionaries], and eg [Wang & Strong 1996] and [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011]. Usually made of several measures rather than a single quantity (for example the Admiralty or NATO codes). Useful so that dubious information can be suitably compared with higher quality information. Weak problem solving is associated with specific research conditions, including an ill-structured problem space, unclear or unsystematic steps, and a lack of prior domain knowledge [Simon, Langley and Bradshaw 1981] [Palmer et al 2007]
Dictionaries | Wang & Strong 1996 | Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011 | Simon, Langley & Bradshaw 1981 | Palmer & et al 2007
Categories:
Categories:
( inspired by {memory performance})
Categories: Assimilation | Assessing | Information Quality
easy to manipulate, easy to aggregate, easy to combine. Candidate from [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011]
Categories:
Categories:
Language, Grammer, Speach acts: somewhere between the mechanics of information transfer and social expertise collaboration etc, is the human and machine languages used to communicate. Eg Speach acts (/...),Dstl/CP40411 {Mechanics} [DSTL/CP40411]
Categories:
Really a "side effect" of Knowledge Distribution and {Knowledge Gather}, but nevertheless a {Motivation} for transferring particular but unknown-in-advance knowledge around organisations. Contention between consuming {Attention} and communicating enough so that the right bits of knowledge combine with the right bits of other knowledge.
Knowledge Gather | Motivation | Attention
Categories:
Categories:
How well data can be mapped to other data (eg temperature to temperature, but addresses are harder in places without postcodes, etc) [me. Perhaps quick wins/ competitve hypothesis testing]
Categories:
Categories:
A range of definitions, well summarised by [Breakspear 2012]
Categories: Assessment | Method
Categories: Expectations
Intent as one of the things we need to include in the Knowledge mix (eg Tomasello 2005) [Tomasello 2005] Relationship to tasks, goals: Does knowledge management need to support business strategy (as [Mclaughlin] says), or does it inform business strategy or both. It's not sufficient to assume it is a tool for directives; intelligence and OODA looops suggest they inform each other. Knowledge strategies have to be aligned with what? Business process? {Intent} {Purpose}
Categories:
Interpretable, without inappropriate language and symbol, readable. [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011]
Categories:
{ANTI:Attention} anti
Categories:
Categories:
Introduction/Overviews: eg Bosch-Sijtsema 2011 et al list five not unusual factors: Team task (complexity, ambiguity, interdepedence), Team Structure (and content: experience, skills, distribution, sub groupings), Work processes (loads, attention distribution, commuication, planning & action processes, etc), Work place (physical, virtual, tools?, social) and context (organisation policies, culture, etx) {Checklists} [Bosch-Sijtsema 2011]
Categories:
Checking oneself and team for missed good practice, etc ["Self monitoring" from SAS 050]
"Self, monitoring", from, et al 50
Categories:
Categories:
Reputations may be invested into others; eg when a senior promotes a junior, the senior's reputation is on the line too, so the senior looks for the right information to support the junior [Lucas 2006]?. Similarly reputation might be invested in association: I am of 'these', and you are of 'these', so in order to prevent 'these' from coming into disrepute, I will make sure you have what you need to know.
Categories: Method
{Trojan Mice} {Update Rates} {Loops}
Trojan Mice | Update Rates | Loops
Categories:
Just In Time concepts can refer to access to semi-centralised references to lookup information, rather than being bombarded by continuous uncoordinated change updates (eg [Sieloff] ). Similarly Push and Pull, or {Publish and Subscribe}: eg seeking experts ( [Kwan and Damian 2011] ) Locating and referring to community-wide ('global') documents and people (eg [Liu et al] who look at a very specific solution). {Indirection} in the form of directories rather than dictionaries - finding people who know 'people who know what' rather than 'that' [Earl] Knowing where to look; distributing pointers and references rather than data. Also recommender systems (a kind of push eg [Zhen 2012])
Publish and Subscribe | Indirection
Sieloff | Kwan & Damian 2011 | Liu & et al | Earl | Zhen 2012
Categories: Organisation structure
eg [Kent 1949] and the review of his book by [Kendall 1949], revisited relatively recently by [Davis 2007]
Kent 1949 | Kendall 1949 | Davis 2007
Categories:
Implies KM metrics. Ahmad, Madhoushi & Yosuf 2011, but does not connect KM to outcomes (so what K is M'd) and facros seem a bit vague
Categories:
A practical cross-domain definition of "what we believe we know"; that is there may be things we know that are not actually true. Lots of definitions; start with [Jakubik 2007] for a summary
Categories:
For example where military research used to be internal and isolated by security, it now needs to look to the much larger civilian research domains and gather what it needs(see eg [Holland Smith, McOwat, Mark 2011])
Holland, Smith, McOwat, et al 2011
Categories: Organisation
Deliberate policies and facilities to store information and make it available. To encourage people to share what they know Feedbacks and Recursion: Knowledge management as a means to diffuse process (management practice) that in turn affects knowledge management, see eg [Lenox 2008] Moving {Routines} around organisations. KM can be a way to look at (reframe, examine, maybe adjust) old practices [Sieloff] Knowledge Management Systems arrived only in the last twenty years or so (eg [Alavi, Leidner 1999]). Building deliberate systems to capture and share knowledge that includes information (for codifiable knowledge) but also people (for tacit) Knowledge maps [Sieloff] - who makes them, who maintains them
Lenox 2008 | Sieloff | Alavi & Leidner 1999 | Sieloff
Categories: Stickiness
Stickiness of knowledge: Reminders, Stories (and Games) and Alternatives [Kozlova 2011] as ways of making knowledge stick. Technology can support memory consistency over a set of interactions by maintaining reference text or documents [Kawash 2011] instant messaging provide a way of ''looking back'' at what happened before [personal conversation with JDOC users]. Forum postings similarly, but may take too long to do to be worthwhile. See also {Stickiness} as a bias, eg {Confirmation bias}; reluctance to change worldview {Surprise}
Stickiness | Confirmation bias | Surprise
Kozlova 2011 | Kawash 2011 | personal, conversation, with, et al
Categories:
Categories: Knowledge
Knowledge as ''stock'' or assets (eg [Helderman 1999] ) Knowledge is power and political, and this challenges utilitarian distribution policies (see [Ã?Â?gland 2009], or [Davenport & Prusak 2000]). Related is who selects which problems are focussed on in the first place (third loop, fig 2 [Ã?Â?gland 2009]); whose interest is being served, who gains power, who loses [Anand 2002 via Lucas 2006] and [Barret 2004 via Lucas 2006 p21] . [Hinds & Pfeffer 2003] rate this as a disincentive to share, esp to those 'outside' the team. Status mitigates/reverses this [Blau 1955 via Hinds & Pfeffer 2003] Organisations should 'hire nice people and treat them nicely' [Davenport and Prusak 2000 via Hinds & Pfeffer 2003] in order to reduce over-competition.
Helderman 1999 | Ã?Â?gland 2009 | Davenport & Prusak 2000 | Ã?Â?gland 2009 | Anand 2002 via Lucas 2006 | Barret 2004 via Lucas 2006 p21 | Hinds & Pfeffer 2003 | Blau 1955 via Hinds & Pfeffer 2003 | Davenport & Prusak 2000 via Hinds & Pfeffer 2003
Categories:
Degrees of difference: Jargon vs different lingos. Awareness of difference (eg American, British)
Categories:
A range here '' the difficulties in fixing after the distribution. See eg Allison Tragedy of Errors trying to correct stats mistakes
Categories:
See eg Latency and the Quest of Interactivity [Cheshire 1996].
Categories:
Categories:
"Learning and relearning from work '' eg [Kozlova 2011] (methods for looking at histories of decision processes). Learning by Doing [Nelson & Clark 1994 via Ciborra et al 1996] [Williamson 1975 via Ciborra et al 1996] See also {Rich Pictures} as a way of working through the problem to gain understanding, rather than passive listening.
Kozlova 2011 | Nelson & Clark 1994 via Ciborra & et al 1996 | Williamson 1975 via Ciborra & et al 1996
Categories: Barriers
term suggested by [Senge 1990] who suggested 7 barriers to learning: 1 ? I am my position 2 ? The enemy is out there 3 ? The illusion of taking charge 4 ? The fixation on events 5 ? The parable of the boiled frog 6 ? The delusion of learning from experience 7 ? The myth of the management team
Categories:
Failures to routine and effectively and efficiently transfer knowledge ''despite it being critical'' (Gupta & Govindarajan 2000 p473) [Gupta & Govindarajan 2000]
Categories: Barriers
Illegality adds a barrier (eg Aked's investigation into darknets) and legal requirements (eg privacy, data protection act UK)
Categories:
When it goes wrong: What can we learn from failures to routine or effectively/ efficiently transfer knowledge ''despite it being critical'' [Gupta & Govindarajan 2000 p473] and see alo eg [Oluikpe 2012]. Beware that too narrow a view of fixing problems can lead to other problems the next time around and so {Flip Flopping} between methods as lessons are unlearned. Also as [senge 1990] there are {Learning Disabilites} barriers to learning
Flip Flopping | Learning Disabilites
Gupta & Govindarajan 2000 p473 | Oluikpe 2012 | senge 1990
Categories:
(SAS 050) where attitudes and desires cause people to ignore/downplay key elements of discord/contradiction puzzles. [SAS 050]
Categories: Bias
Common term, see eg Penguin Dictionary of Psychology [Reber 1995] {Simplifying} {Situation Complexity} Where attitudes and desires cause people to ignore/downplay key elements of discord/contradiction puzzles. [SAS 050]
Simplifying | Situation Complexity
Categories: Boundary Spanner
Liaison groups '' ie groups tasked with managing links to other organisations (eg [Ciborra 1996] British Army Doctrine) . Working groups across boundaries that focus on particular tasks/knowledge areas/projects.British Army doctrine places air force communication operators 'forward' where they can talk to jet pilots in their language while viewing the situation in the army's context and intent {ANTI:barriers} In business eg [Bosch, Volberda & Boer 1999] cross-functional relationships that provide knowledge transfer routes without requiring re-structuring {Organisation Structure}
ANTI:barriers | Organisation Structure
Ciborra 1996 | Bosch, Volberda & Boer 1999
Categories:
Categories:
Are increasing complexity of tasks demanding better KM, or is better KM allowing more complex tasks. "What are we still doing wrong?" Lucas, Ogilve 2006 [Lucas, Ogilva 2006]
Categories:
Trust does not need to be universal. Rodriguez (2007) examines how people self-organise to connect better to people they trust, creating clusters of trusting sub-communities. McNair (2010) sees trust develop between those develop participant language skills {Cliques} [Rodriguez 2007] [ McNair 2010]
Categories: Organisation | Knowledge
Where does the knowledge sit? [Malhotra 2001 via Sherehiy & Karwowski 2006]: 26% paper, 20% digital form, 42% employee''s minds (does it count if it''s on paper? Malhotra reference does not contain further references to sources) or [Edvison & Malone via Sherehiy & Karwowski 2006] Individual, structural and organizational knowledge. Also ''stereotyped'' (for a s/w engineer...) Virtual Knowledge Bases (sets of information databases of facts served up through different UIs and processing), eg DSTL/CP40411 [Bray, Simon 2010]
Malhotra 2001 via Sherehiy & Karwowski 2006 | Edvison & Malone via Sherehiy & Karwowski 2006 | Bray & Simon 2010
Categories:
Categories:
The combination of ?mission command? and the 'long telescope' has already been given as a way of reducing the need for communication. The ?long telescope? is not entirely welcome as it tempts senior commanders to push aside the principles of mission command and apply a 'long screwdriver' to fiddle with detail at the low level, disrupting activities there and distracting the commander from other tasks. Even the {long telescope} itself can be disruptive if it requires the observed to spend attention describing the situation, as given in many places, eg [Kramer 1971], [Hurley 2007], [Larsen 2009], [Campbell 1999]. and expressed by Moltke via [Creveld] as ?No commander is less fortunate than he who operates with a telegraph wire stuck in his back? Not strictly speaking knowledge transfer problem, but one that drives need for more
Kramer 1971 | Hurley 2007 | Larsen 2009 | Campbell 1999 | Creveld
Categories:
Categories:
Categories:
Externalising (diagrams, lists), systematic checklists, compartmentalising (systems thinking) and distributing the problem
Categories:
See [Heiman] who called this a 'parallel model' (as in logic gates). This increases the chance of Type I errors (accepting a hypothesis that is false) but reduces the chance of Type II errors (rejecting a hypothesis that is true). See also the opposite: {Veto Redundancy}
Categories:
Communities of Practice / Matrix Management : ways to deliberately build connections along lines of expertise as well as along task hierarchies, to distribute technical/context knowledge. Successful? Eg Oluikpe 2012 [Oluikpe 2012]
Categories:
Confirming knowledge transfer, and evaluating the effectiveness of knowledge transfer mechanisms, is commonly done by paraphrasing, exercises, and before and after tests, whether by informal quick checks or formal exams (see for example Kirkpatrick''s Four Levels 2005, or Laird''s ''Approaches to training and development'' 2003) [Kirkpatrick 2005, Laird 2003]
Kirkpatrick, 2005 & Laird 2003
Categories:
Categories:
Situation Awareness for example can be corrupted by mis-remembering reports or the salient elements of it them, or the order in which they arrive, or the Availability of events that are more clearly remembered than others. Mitigate by having reports readily available for re-reading, using common reference material. Common term well researched, see eg "Dictionary of Psychology" [Colan 2003]
Categories:
See eg an evaluation oof KM tools (De Long 2004 via [de Long]
Categories:
Meta-knowledge/Ontologies '' information about information as ways to inform the structure and distribution of knowledge (eg Nevo) [Nevo]
Categories: Quality | Time | Method
Metadata include markers to track {Provenance assurance} and enable other {Information Quality} processes It takes effort to assess metadata, eg confidence, and this consumes {attention} (from anecdotal reports from Int Corps tour)
Provenance assurance | Information Quality | attention
Categories:
Top level catalogue category.
Categories:
Keeping in mind a variety of factors is hard, and some will tend to slip down the priority list (eg health and safety). So have to keep reminding people to keep bringing it nearer to the forefront {Priority} {Attention} [Conversation with Stewart]
Categories:
Categories:
Categories:
What influences what and how much {Uncertainty} {Trust} [Palmer 2010]
Categories:
Where the tasks/assessments can be sensible compartmentalised (often software) eg [Grunwald & Kieser, 2007 via Kieser & Koch 2008], but some systems don't compartmentalise well as the interdepencies are large and deep (eg new car design)
Grunwald & Kieser 2007 via Kieser & Koch 2008
Categories:
Monitoring the performance/outcomes of the strategies: eg Hutchinson describes the Dissemination Analysis Group [Hutchinson] Can extend this to be a way of showing participants how the strategies & policies have affected knowledge transfer (eg Annosi et al 2008) {Information Assurance} [Hutchinson Annosi et al 2008]
Hutchinson | Hutchinson Annosi & et al 2008
Categories:
Monte carlo as a way of deriving uncertainty in outputs from uncertainties in the model
Categories: Organisation | Social
General purpose (common/individual) desires to complete goals [Dictionaries] See eg [EIU 2016] survey of companies, where 'collaboration' is associated with performance. Introduction to [Erden Krogh & Nonaka 2008] makes many referenced assertions about creating knowledge being very important, and this isonly done by sharing knowledge
Dictionaries | EIU 2016 | Erden, Krogh & Nonaka 2008
Categories: Barriers
eg [Hinds & Pfeffer 2003]
Motivation & Incentives:Costs vs benefits of transferring knowledge (Lucas 2006 p20) can lead to barriers if costs seen as too high compared to benefits (not surprising). ''Identity'' is closely linked to willingness to be associated with activities (Albert & Whetten 1985 via Lucas)) Academia in commerce: the bindings of academia as distinctly different communities from commerce, and the way they interact, eg Zaharia (entrepneural university). And vice versa: HP colocating offices near cities with academic institutions (Sieloff) ie motivations to interact and overcome natural barriers. 'Emergency overrride' - eg Shorko FIlms (via Earl) where people share lifelong accumulated knowledge to save a working community. Contrary to Knowledge is Power, Knowledge Sharing can improve Job Satisfaction (status etc) see Kianto, Vanhala & Heilmann 2016 Cooperating for the sake of it: [Bardzell et al] (online gaming) suggest that people are motivated by the opportunity just to cooperate. [Albert & Whetten 1985 via Lucas] [ Sieloff] [ Earl] Motivation to share to improve performance: Why do we collaborate? [Meyer 2009] asserts that people in groups 'can' outperform the same number of individuals, but we need to be careful about what the performance measure is. [Brooks] in ''The mythical man months'' makes some very convincing cases that more people can reduce performance. There are overheads in collaboration that include sharing knowledge that is not required in individuals; the performance measure is calendar time, not overall effort (ie, if 1 person takes a year to produce something, 2 people may take 9 months, which is less efficient but still completes earlier). At the Group level, [Erden Krogh & Nonaka 2008] consider that group sharing provides 'collective improvisation' which allows groups to respond to - and create - new situations.
Bardzell & et al | Albert & Whetten 1985 via Lucas | Sieloff | Earl | Meyer 2009 | Brooks | Erden, Krogh & Nonaka 2008
Categories:
Is there a gap? What are we not doing right yet? Why do we care? [US Dept Labour 2000 via Sherehiy & Karwowski 2006] '' information overload & chaos, information congestion, workforce leaving with expertise (3 years average)", competition (predict changes), ' refers to [Serban & Luan]. 'Not got it right yet' assumed at start [Lucas 2006] {Value}
US, Dept & Labour 2000 via Sherehiy & Karwowski 2006 | Serban & Luan | Lucas 2006
Categories: Social | Other | Organisation
When compartmentalising tasks make use of existing social boundaries and identities (eg Reisch 2010). Break tasks into mostly self-contained colocated units - HP approach, Sieloff, ensuring that Knowledge Distribution is easy where it needs to be, and the low level information exchange constraints are mapped by changing the organisation into cells that reflect these. But this fosters small-scale thinking. (Sieloff) {Boundaries} {Granularity} {Scope}
Boundaries | Granularity | Scope
Categories:
The incentives to connect, the priorities given to urgent requests and needs to share [(derived)]
Categories:
Where the transferred knowledge is not appropriate to the new environment (Singley & Anderson via Hinds & Pfeffer 2003) so the cost outweighs the benefit, or worse where it seems to be appropriate and so is used for an inappropriate circumstance. A valid call for {Not invented here}
Categories: Context
This could do with a different term, highlighting the apparent similarity ("Seems Similar")
Categories:
[Dictionaries] assuring transfer of information/data over networks {Reliability} {Predictability} [Understanding Information Age Warfare]
Dictionaries | Understanding, Information, Age, et al
Categories:
Categories:
How easy is it to find and reach people
Categories:
''If only HP knew what HP knows'' [Dvaenport 1993]; we are not a shared collective.
Categories:
Categories:
Problems with moving processes etc to a new environment (Hinds & Pfeffer 2003), possibly also something about not understanding the process (me) {Negative Transfer}
Categories:
Categories:
impartial, unbiased, objective, based on facts. (4 items)
Categories: Situation | Assimilation | Observation
Not having the opportunity to observe the world; being in the wrong place, being asleep, not having the right equipment
Categories:
{Assimilation} of the {Situation} See also {Observation completeness}
Assimilation | Situation | Observation completeness
Categories:
Ensuring observers are trained to record the right details to the right level (eg SCRIM) Training in measuring (sciences) and observing (military) and recording correctly
Categories:
Obvious acquisition, eg Beer (''we were doing that way any way'') and eg Micklethwaite and Wooldridge 1996 ''What of the third, more substantial charge: that most of what the gurus say is blindingly obvious? Some things that strike us nowadays as blindingly obvious were anything but when far-sighted management theorists began to talk about them. Besides, there is nothing inherently wrong with stating the obvious. One argument for hiring management consultants is that they can see what insiders can't.'' [Beer] [ Micklethwaite & Woolridge 1996]
Beer | Micklethwaite & Woolridge 1996
Categories:
Categories:
Categories:
Categories: Bias | Assessment
Order of finding stuff out eg [Patrick, Bott et al] affects judgement
Categories:
Top level catalogue category. A collection of people with {Proximity} dimensions
Categories: Organisation
{Routines} etc
Categories:
Seen as a waste to be reduced by most western companies (still!), [Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995] recommend it as a way of ensuring tacit knowledge etc can be passed over boundaries - a 'common cognitive ground' - and so encourage {innovation}. Also {Competition} between teams working on the same project encourages different viewpoints and vigorous debate. So a kind of organised {Boundary Spanner} or systematic {Liaison}
innovation | Competition | Boundary Spanner | Liaison
Categories: Collaboration Arrangements | Granularity & Scope
Review & Summary by eg [Volberda 1999] "Building the flexible firm"; for example [Bosch, Volberda & Boer 1999] heirarchical (efficient at established tasks, not {Organization flexibility}, Divisional (with flatter heirarchies and more delegation) and Matrix (which looks like a 'pool' of experts assembled for tasks, very flexible but inefficient as no established routines or relationships). Importance of {Liaison} to cut across functional barriers without requiring re-organisations. [Burton & Obel 2004] list a number of differnt 'basic configurations' p46 but I think it's normally more complex than that (even if that's the intent of the orgnaisation) Organisations may be considered to have 'edges', and therefore {Boundaries}, although in some cases internal barriers might be greater than some external ones (partnerships with other organisations will lead to closer ties than across to other parts of the organisation) Includes physical, social, cultural and technical connections. Organisations may be suborganisations of other organisations. See [Blankenship 2009] for example table. See eg [Tang, Mu, MacLachlan 2010] for simulations on two different heirarchies and how they affect {Knowledge Transfer}
Organization flexibility | Liaison | Boundaries | Knowledge Transfer
Volberda 1999 | Bosch, Volberda & Boer 1999 | Burton & Obel 2004 | Blankenship 2009 | Tang, Mu & MacLachlan 2010
Categories: Organisation | Flexibility
Note that organisation flexibility might require training rigidity; the British Army can assemble a 'golf bag' of teams with different expertise as they have, in principle, common training procedures and language and so on.
Categories: Organisation | Organisation Memory | Group Tacit Knowledge
Organisation's knowledge is only the knowledge of its staff, and not all its staff know what the other staff know. An organisation may 'learn' therefore by either having some staff learn (either from other staff, or from external sources), or by acquring staff who already know. Summarised in eg [Levitt & March 1988]. See also Herbert [Simon 1989] who talks about elements of organisations that might learn through doing and motivated acquiring - eg university research labs - and so act as 'intelligence' units for relevant knowledge outside the organisation. {Organisation Memory} includes things like {Routines}, which are in the heads of people but new people learn by imitation rather than understanding. The lifetime of the Routine in the oganisation can be independent of the lifetime of the people using it. {Lessons Learned} are often recorded but less often retrieved - a problem with {Attention} and understanding which of the many lessons learned to consult. [eg Levitt & March 1988] Internal mechanisms for diffusion modelled on diseases (!) from Levitt & March 1988 again
Organisation Memory | Routines | Lessons Learned | Attention
Levitt & March 1988 | Simon 1989 | eg, Levitt & March 1988
Categories:
Words, diagrams and photographs cannot convey information that can be understood by direct pointing, or demonstrating, or feeling [Collins 2001]
Categories:
Categories: Social
[Common Term] {Social}
Categories:
Storr argues that outcomes are ''emergent'' rather than mechanically predictive, and so hard to pin down (p117) [Storr 2009]
Categories:
Participation may be a better model than ''transfer'' so that the users are ''active problem-solvers and construct their own knowledge, rather than passive receptacles''. (eg Hutchinson). ''...a shift in the knowledge use literature from a rational or "imperativist" perspective to a more conflict-theoretic and constructivist perspective (Dunn and Holzner, 1988; Huberman, 1990)... What about Cranfield's work for Commanders to participate rather than passively listen? [Hilton, Dodds] [Hutchinson] [ Dunn and Holzner 1998] [ Huberman 1990] [ Dodds/Hilton?]
Hilton & Dodds | Hutchinson | Dunn & Holzner 1998 | Huberman 1990 | Dodds/Hilton?
Categories:
Categories:
Mil term for regular events or arrangements of things in time and space
Categories:
Planning interactions, etc [eg SAS 050 Patterns of Interaction]
Categories: Barriers
A small but often sufficiently strong {barriers} to accessing data, news articles, academic papers etc. Knock on effects; if you cite data or a paper and the reader can't access it, what does this mean for audit? Eg urbanisation paper [Jones, Wang et al 1990]; has this made the case watertight or not? It's in nature. What does that tell us?
Categories:
Distinguish between peer review in the abstract, and the term used for formal academic discourse {Validation} {Quality Assurance}
Validation | Quality Assurance
Categories: Information Transfer
Voice communication for example is {Ephemeral}, IM is more persistent, more so etc. Archiving practice and references are relevant to allow persistent material to remain {Information Recall Availability}; academic journals and citation methods provide ready methods for long persistance, whereas some archives are essentially lost even though they exist.
Ephemeral | Information Recall Availability
Categories:
Categories:
Categories:
The design of buildings for teams that are near-located to encourage contact (Fitzpatrick 1998) [Fitzpatrick 1998]
Categories: Proximity
eg desks next to each other, office down the corridor, different floor, etc
Categories:
Broad category to capture aspects of what is Known
Categories: Quality
Dictionary. Equivocality from SAS 050
Categories:
How close is the current understanding to the real world (related to information currency etc)
Categories:
How many things must go wrong for a failure to occur? (see eg 'Tragedy of errors' [Srikanth 2016] where several things had to go wrong for the final failure to occur, any one of a number could/should have gone right to avoid it)
Categories: Language
Categories:
Categories:
At the extreme form, the plan can never settle as the new information keeps changing it. Later information tends to disrupt more than earlier information. From Market Garden exercise
Categories:
Thorough planning, but no plan survives contact [(Conclusion)]
Categories:
What next? Future Baiget 2009 asks if we are building our values into the automatic systems to a stage where we cannot easily adjust them as they become more powerful. Poitical paper, further work [Baiget 2009]
Categories:
. For example {Alternative Fact}, ''Conspiracy Theory'', or ''Skeptical'' in academic climate science. {Sound bites}
Alternative Fact | Sound bites
Categories:
Shaping information phrasing etc to fit popular or superior sentiment. Contrast with Speaking Truth To Power.
Categories:
(Candidate characteristc list Eriksson 2009) [Eriksson 2009]
Categories:
Power is related to reputation; the effect of publishing on reputation ( ''your name, your brand'' Itellipedia, EIU 2008) may cause either reluctance or enthusiasm to publish, and will probably affect the care and time taken in doing so. [EIU 2008]
Categories:
A type of mission command (eg Alberts 2003)
Categories:
Defined in [AQA 2008] and as ?Precision under repeatability conditions? [ISO 5725]. ?the similarity or consistency between measurement results? [Weiner 2007] Also Variability in statistics Also referred to as Repeatability: returning similar results when measuring similar things [JCGM 2008] [NDT-AEPU]. Sometimes referred to as Reliability [Sechrest 1984] Should be set in context of Value Validity, Resolution and rates of change. Membership of an association can be reported to the nearest individual, but people join and leave every day [Sechrest 1984] Note that you can be very precise within a certain resolution (eg pixels in a camera image)
AQA 2008 | ISO 5725 | Weiner 2007 | JCGM 2008 | NDT-AEPU | Sechrest 1984 | Sechrest 1984
Categories:
Categories:
? who did performance monitoring and incentives (betting on actual outcomes by many people '' wisdom of crowds)
Categories:
Categories:
Dodgy term re how likely a situation is likely to unfold in a way that can be forseen (ie by existing fact and theory with possibly derived theory)
Categories:
Categories:
Categories:
Presentation as a means to reduce overload and clutter: Not just the amount but the arrangement/form of information as a means to communicate (see eg Tufte) [Tufte]
Categories:
Categories:
Data that is less surprising is easier to assimilate. {Absorptive capacity} is determined by the stock of prior related knowledge and its distribution across, and flow between, subsidiaries [Cohen and Levinthal 1990], [Van den Bosch, Volberda, and de Boer 1999]; [Lenox and King 2004]. The speed and reliability of {Knowledge Transfer} is heavily influenced by the knowledge sets of sender {Expression} and receiver {Assimilation} [Mowery, Oxley and Silverman 1996]; [Ahuja and Katila 2001]; [Meyer 2009]. When they are very different, the lack of common context makes the communication more difficult and less reliable, and when they are very similar ''little learning occurs when two agents become so closely aligned in their knowledge sets that their knowledge (transfer) becomes redundant'' which is almost entirely unsurprising. Beware also of How much the prior knowledge is not relevant but appears to be so.
Absorptive capacity | Knowledge Transfer | Expression | Assimilation
Cohen & Levinthal 1990 | Van, den, Bosch, et al 1999 | Lenox & King 2004 | Mowery, Oxley & Silverman 1996 | Ahuja & Katila 2001 | Meyer 2009
Categories:
Raised by the Market Garden case study
Categories:
Categories:
Need to compartmentalise some knowledge (eg data protection act)
Categories:
Planning is key to success, but no plan survives contact with the enemy {anti-Product}
Categories:
Establishing process instead of expertise; following process is easier than explaining sufficient expertise to carry out the process with knowledge (eg Matsuo, Easterby-Smith 2008)
Categories: Stickiness
Stickiness of processes etc; Hutchinson describes various attempts to direct teaching practices as education went through a series of reforms in the 50s onwards, including various forms of written materials, road shows, embedding etc. New methods would get watered down into the old ways of doing things. Was not immediately obvious if that was because the new methods were not appropriate to the local conditions, or the local practitioners could not/would not adapt. Beer: new ones might *be* the old ones with a new label [Hutchinson] [ Beer]
Categories:
(Candidate characteristc list Eriksson 2009) [Eriksson 2009]
Categories:
Providing only what's needed, delving in as required [eg Kloprogge 2007]
Categories:
Where did it come from, by what means was it reported. Reduces data incest
Categories: Trust | Quality Assurance
Categories:
Responsibility and Accountability as markers for trust. That is, the material itself has no trust indicator, but the authors are held accoubtable/responsible for it. Similarly open data and open code may not be investigated, but being open is a ''better'' marker than being hidden.
Categories: Organisation | Collaboration Arrangements
One of the key characteristics of how people and systems are arranged in an organisation or collaboration. [Boschma 2005] suggests five dimensions of proximity: cognition, organisation, social, institute, geography. He says too much or too little is bad for innovation, but seems to lump too many things into each. In any case it seems likely there are {Sweet Spots} in combinations of proximities.
Categories:
eg moving team members to colocate teams, or frequency of meetings, or 'bed in' teams to reduce social distances, etc
Categories:
Categories:
Indirection: directories rather than dictionaries - finding who knows people who know, or what or where, rather than 'that' [Earl] eg seeking experts [Kwan and Damian, 2011] Locating and referring to community-wide ('global') documents and people (eg [Liu et al] who look at a very specific solution) without telling all that is known
Earl | Kwan & Damian 2011 | Liu & et al
Categories:
[McConnell 1987] p108 cites an anonymous letter signed ?Apocalypse? that describes an autocratic rule at Marshall, where those responsible for a component reported on that component?s condition. Where it was not yet ready, or suffered a failure, they were punished. This meant, understandably, that people were reluctant to admit faults or their full scale. In practice, reporting by the test team should be independent from those responsible for passing the tests, but as described above the Reliability & Quality Assurance teams had been considerably reduced. Similarly, accidental damage was being punished and this means that damage was less likely to be reported. After the accident, says [McConnell 1987] p211, it was discovered that a technician had improperly used the umbilical fuel valve between fuel tank and orbiter, which could have had catastrophic results, without reporting it.
McConnell 1987 | McConnell 1987
Categories:
Categories: Trust
A "Quality" is a description of the 'goodness' of information (in this case); it does not mean that the information is good. Quality Assurance is a way of ensuring that the information is of a certain level of goodness. {Quality Assurance}
Categories: Data Quality | Information Quality | Trust
[Common Term] {Metadata}
Categories:
Can put numbers to it {Uncertainty} {Trust} [Palmer 2010]
Categories:
Informign policy makers so they can make policies that are adjustable, encapsulated by the ranges {Uncertainty} {Trust} [Palmer 2010]
Categories:
(Candidate characteristic list [Eriksson 2009]) Better decisions by considering all options {ANTI:Heuristics} {ANTI:Timeliness}
ANTI:Heuristics | ANTI:Timeliness
Categories:
Categories:
Readability reduces cognitive load, so leaving more for the problem. There are more than 40 readability tests, and their reliability at various grade-reading levels differs, as do their underlying readability formulas. See eg ''????��?���¢ SMOG (the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook test) McLaughlin 1969 ''????��?���¢ The Fry Readability Test (Fry 1968) ''????��?���¢ The Flesch Reading Ease Test ''????��?���¢ The Lexile'????��?���® Framework for Reading * The Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test (incorporated in to MS Word) {Assimilation} [Brewer 2011]
Categories:
Also in reducing communication needs (acceptability without full audit, for example). Different skills and knowledge to be integrated into a task; so people can''t check other knowledge against their own [Newell 2007], except where it overlaps. {Trust} [Newell 2007]
Categories: Method
This is the 'other' side of the decision step, which is not explicitly studied, but there are important features of how knowledge is aquired and confirmed that require interaction with the real world. Possibly the only 'scientific' element of the {Scientific Method} is the 'test against the real world' step. OODA loop [Boyde], int cycle [QwfBA], etc. See eg also Napolean Bonaparte - executing a plan impacts the real world, strategy must cope with high information needs at operating ends
Categories: Assessing
Categories:
Categories:
A type of {Heuristics}. Appropriate training and experience makes similar assimilation easier, but can be misleading if the situation is misrecognised or otherwise different in fundemental ways. See eg [Klein etal 1998] on firemen in "Sources of Power"
Categories: Organisation
{ANTI:Groupthink} anti {Peer Review}
Categories:
eg [Hammond 2004]
Categories:
Categories: Organisation structure
Clustering, 'Centralisation': Repositories as local enablers: local discussion is informed by central (remote) repositories and vice versa [Sieloff] and [Earl] IT etc; 'centrally' (for a given community meaing of central) accessible databases that can be added to and viewed [Earl]. Is this the same as a library {Boundaries} {Granularity} & {Scope}
Boundaries | Granularity | Scope
Categories:
Categories:
Reference Portals (eg wiki/sharepoints) as ways to document and publish to the communities eg Oluikpe 2012. Portals (eg wiki/sharepoints) are slightly down in the technical weeds, but the ability to have centrally accessible reference documents (ie, ones that everyone can refer to in a common way and common diagrams, etc) are useful ways to document and publish to the communities eg Oluikpe 2012 and many commercial training and ''how to'' materials. [Oluikpe 2012]
Categories:
Common reference material provides common reference frames [thinking. Sieler/HP. Wikipedia]
thinking., Sieler/HP. & Wikipedia
Categories:
Current state' vs updates (Reference Set vs discourse): Controlling 'current picture'; eg engineering diagrams and fixes and bugs. eg Airbus Industries distributing CD-ROMs of maintenance manuals, and/or websites for Xerox engineers for fixes approved by peers(Earl) plus various others. Probably not public, as the support is a revenue stream. But there is also public forums, eg Nokia, where customers can support each other, reducing the load on non-revenue support activities . eg Haynes manuals . But then also vanity publishing (Sieloff) '' clutter [Earl, Sieloff]
Categories:
[Gupta & Govindarajan 1991] make the point that different host government regulations will affect the way that a multinational corporation treats its different subsidiaries. In any case there are various laws on holding information (eg The UK Data Protection Act) and social mores on how data is processed ("There is legal, and there is will-be-illegal, and there is legal-and-acceptable. Inbetween is 'creepy'" - Amazon CIO at RUSI conference 2012ish)
Categories:
useful, relevant, applicable, helpful. (4 items) [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011] Understanding relevance helps route the information to the 'right people at the right time', but this becomes more difficult when the people and the structure changes quickly [Anne et al 2008] who calls the 'rightness' of the information to the task 'proximity'.
Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011 | Anne & et al 2008
Categories:
Reliable, dependable. (2 items) [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011] {Not:Accuracy} E20 See also engineering definitions And transfer of concepts to Social Sciences eg [Carmines & Zeller 1979] and Psychology [Sechrest 1984]
Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011 | Carmines & Zeller 1979 | Sechrest 1984
Categories:
emails, phones, chat; low barriers to quick interrupts and deal-withs (conversation with military operators re jchat) [(me)]
Categories:
some technology mediated relationships are more accurate than unmediated (Straus, Miles & Levesque 2001 via Crampton etc). All the same, Crampton etc assert that visiting the remote sites aids social understanding, even if only some of the local team do so {Proximity} [(Straus, Miles & Levesque 2001 via Crampton]
(Straus, Miles & Levesque 2001 via Crampton
Categories:
Continuous education in 'push' update forms such as forums, news feeds, interest sites, etc [(Technical/Management website interest feeds)]
(Technical/Management, website, interest, et al
Categories: Observation
Academic discourse assertion {Information Conformity} {Quality}
Information Conformity | Quality
Categories: Quality
Can lead to very different pictures
Categories:
Barrier to reporting: incentive to overcome any barriers. Disenctives to get involved
Categories:
Barriers to reporting, eg onerous requirements, inadequate equipment/transport,
Categories:
concise, compact. (2 items)
Categories:
Various ways of representing uncertainty that are easier to understand vs more complex. See eg Blackett 2011: Italian Flag, Cochranes data quality, IPCC, etc
Categories:
Disposition to block or deny, by individual and/or group {Sensitivity} {Levelling}
Categories:
How easy it is to avoid responsibility for data/reports/ {Security} {Information Assurance}
Security | Information Assurance
Categories: Social Trust | Trust
[Dictionaries] [Li 2005 p10] talks about reputation as trust to improve long term relationships, eg brokered by middle managers. Reputation is an aid to trustworthiness, a potential for successful transfer, see [Barret 2004], [Hansen 1999], [Szulanski 1996], for those looking to experts for suitable information. However reputation can affect expert behaviours, for example by those with good reputations making them reluctant to risk it compared to those without ('Matthew Effect' from [Lucas 2006]), or by encouraging them to direct sharing when their reputation is invested and they are conscious of the need to maintain it {Invested Reputation} and that they are more likely to talk to others with good reputations than anyone else (which should also not be surprising). Willingness to engage with others with similar worldviews (...culture...) and less so others with more different (...difficulty?). Risk to reputation; cautious sharing [Lucas 2006 p13]. Broad range of checks to assess other's reputations [Wilson 1985 via Lucas 2006], good reputation increase 'potential' for successful knowledge transfer [Barret 2004, Hansen 1999, Szulanski 1996 via Lucas 2006] Sometimes given by proxies (eg citation counts), or by proxies (ie people's opinion of other people). A key element in both 'community based' and 'systematic' literature reviews (eg "from good sources, of good reputation, well referenced" [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011]) Reputation effects in [Vancil Pendell p2] (Nixon/Kennedy effects review) {Tribes} {Othering} {Barriers}
Invested Reputation | Tribes | Othering | Barriers
Dictionaries | Li 2005 p10 | Barret 2004 | Hansen 1999 | Szulanski 1996 | Lucas 2006 | Lucas 2006 p13 | Wilson 1985 via Lucas 2006 | Barret, 2004, Hansen, et al 1996 via Lucas 2006 | Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011 | Vancil & Pendell p2
Categories: Stickiness
Stickiness of perception/reputation etc: first impressions count: confirmation bias from early impressions (eg Jonas, Schulz-Hardt, Frey & Thelen 2001 via Crampton, Orvis and Wlson 2007). See also remote obectivity; being remote reduces human interaction biases [Jonas, Schulz-Hardt, Frey & Thelen 2001 via Crampton, Orvis and Wlson 2007]
Jonas, Schulz-Hardt, Frey, et al 2001 via Crampton, Orvis & Wlson 2007
Categories:
Reputation/Trust/Rightness: (Li p10) better for long term relationships, eg brokered by middle managers. Lucas 2006 talks about ''Matthew effect'' of people with good reputations more concerned with protecting that reputation than those with none or bad ones (which should not be surprising), and that they are more likely to talk to others with good reputations than anyone else (which should also not be surprising). Willingness to engage with others with similar worldviews (...culture...) and less so others with more different (...difficulty?). Risk to reputation; cautious sharing (Lucas 2006 p13). Broad range of checks to assess other's reputations (Wilson 1985 via Lucas 2006), good reputation increase 'potential' for successful knowledge transfer (Barret 2004, Hansen 1999, Szulanski 1996 via Lucas 2006)
Categories:
[Argote 2001 via Lucas & Ogilve 2006 p8] and [Winter & Szulanski via Lucas & Ogilve 2006 p8] call us creatures of habit that resist change, and this resistance must be managed for knowledge transfer to succeed. ' {Stickiness} (merge topics?) 'Overcoming resistance to change'' is a common management topic but usually fails to address the point: people are rarely resistant to change by itself (who would resist inheriting a few million pounds?), rather people resist uncalled for imposition of change. People need to see what the benefits are to them '' ''buy in'' '' to welcome change. From personal experience, Surprising imposed change is resisted very strongly {Surprise} whereas participation in change {Participation} is much more strongly accepted
Stickiness | Surprise | Participation
Argote 2001 via Lucas & Ogilve 2006 p8 | Winter & Szulanski via Lucas & Ogilve 2006 p8
Categories:
?binning? effects of various sensors. For example, CCD cameras can be pointed very precisely, so that the direction that each pixel is pointing in is well known, but each pixel will capture any photon with its borders
Categories:
Access to and timeliness of that access to new resources to support information tracking, reference sets, dissemination, etc. People as well as technical, mechanical, process [Me] [ Aggregate of others]
Categories:
Categories:
How quickly teams/individuals can respond to trigger event, eg input or observation or request {Timeliness} {Heuristics} [inspired by SAS 050]
Categories: Method | Organisation
eg {Access} ; how quicky can the assessment be made, the information be retrieved, the organisation re-shaped
Categories:
Categories:
Responsiveness: explicitly shared norms about returned phone calls / emails / messages. [Haywood 1998] ''If you want to do one thing that will dramatically improve your teams communication, you should develop availability standards''. See also [Power to the Edge 2003 p128]. {Mitigating Remoteness} {Proximity}
Mitigating Remoteness | Proximity
Haywood 1998 | Power, to, the, et al 2003 p128
Categories: Timeliness
"Rhythm of battle" refers to a regular 'beat' of decision making over a fixed time period which repeats. For example, a daily battle rhythm will issue battle plans at a particular time of day, with a series of milestone meetings and task outputs due at particular times on the run up to that point. Aids internal planning and expectations, but reduces ability to 'grab the moment' see eg [Jim Storr 2009] {OODA Loop} {Planning}
Categories: Visualisation
Discussing over informal diagrams germaine to the discussion, eg [Stanton, McIlory 2012]. Similarly {Rehearsal of Concept} ROC drills where collaborators work through a model of the situation to become comfortable with tasks and requirements. {NOT:Formal Diagrams}
Rehearsal of Concept | NOT:Formal Diagrams
Categories:
The degree to which an assesment remains consistent with a range of plausible unknowns. See also vague/too abstract/not useful/too broad
Categories: Organisation structure
An {organisation} is an arrangement of roles (that may change) with {proximity} to other roles Roles of Nodes in networks distributing knowledge: [Li 2005] describes categories of middle manager activities such as Radar, Filter, Champion, Coordinator and Problem Solver that coordinate relationships, find knowledge, bridge, translate, synthesize, filter and encourage rather than just execute and apply or transfer. These may be laterally across organisations, not ''just'' up and down management hierarchies. Also [Mintzberg 1978] suggests managerial roles that include informational (monitor, disseminator, spokesperson) and relational (eg liaison) (Candidate characteristc list [Eriksson 2009] )
Li 2005 | Mintzberg 1978 | Eriksson 2009
Categories:
Process is knowledge too. Process as knowledge: Capturing knowledge about how to do things as a process or checklist. Automating eg help desks (ie capturing knowledge of process and customer base and history to paper/software/technology) can support certain types of knowledge, especially across high churn staff where tasks are relatively static (eg [Barr 1991] [Mansar, Marir & Reijers 2003]) where the knowledge can be categorised cleanly and held in readily available/recognisable places (eg bug fixes, support desk histories, past histories, sales, etc). Policies must be reasonably fixed wrt to the business model; if the business changes direction then policies/proceses may not be suitable and may not be owned well enough to change see eg [Levitt & march 1988] and as 'Organisation Rules' by [Grant 1996 via Kieser & Koch 2008] but a [Common Term]. {best practice} for example is a routine that has been marked as a preffered set of actvities. May become examples of {Superstitious Learning} whether good or bad as in {Gorillas In a Cage} Also 'contingent employees' (eg contractors) impact is an open question [Lucas 2006 p21]
best practice | Superstitious Learning | Gorillas In a Cage
Barr 1991 | Mansar, Marir & Reijers 2003 | Levitt & march 1988 | Grant 1996 via Kieser & Koch 2008 | ... | Lucas 2006 p21
Categories: Method | Organisation
Any writing. {Information Flow}
Categories:
Inspired by Heaps in Operation Market Garden
Categories:
{Mentoring} [Perez de Long]
Categories: Assessing | Assimilation | Observation
There are an indefinite number of potentially important variables in a new and difficutl experiment and the two parties focus on different ones. Thus A does not realise that B needs to be told to do things in certain ways, and B does not know the right questions to ask. Resolved when they watch each other work {Collaborator Situation Invisibility} [Collins 2001]
Collaborator Situation Invisibility
Categories:
Op Market Garden
Categories:
From [Simon 1989]'s concept of {Bounded Rationality} where people do not seek the perfect, optimal answer from all the available information (and indeed, may not be capable of doing so due to {Information Overload} and limited {Cognitive Capacity} ) and so 'satisfice' instead
Bounded Rationality | Information Overload | Cognitive Capacity
Categories:
Sufficient poorly provenanced information becomes Truth, and then this becomes too solid to deal with contradicting testimony. [Tu''????��?���§e Albayrak]
Tu''????��?���§e & Albayrak
Categories: Method
Categories:
Categories:
secure, protected, authorized access. (3 items) [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011] ? [Dictionaries] Authentication in [SAS 050] {Authentication} {Integrity} {Confidence}
Authentication | Integrity | Confidence
Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011 | Dictionaries | SAS 50
Categories:
Analects Confucius {Assimilation}
Categories:
Selecting what data is informative, and so what is worth the attention and bandwidth that it would consume to communicate and is therefore worth sending, depends on knowing what the recipient knows, doesn''t know, and needs to know. The recipients might communicate what they want to know (''subscribing'' in the publish/subscribe model), which itself costs attention and bandwidth Choosing which information seems more useful and relevant and so on
Categories:
Categories:
Knowledge about the extent of the sender''s expertise also affects communication requirements. An expert that has established credentials that include a reputation for good quality advice may only need to provide an easily codified ''explicit'' opinion. For example an experienced British Army soldier reporting the location and identity of a partially concealed enemy vehicles, or a geologist reporting the likely direction of a mining seam. When these credentials are not so clear then enough background expertise (''why?'', ''because...'') need to also be communicated
Categories:
Categories:
Categories:
No such thing as shared
Categories:
Short interactions: Availability for short comms improves collaborations: instant messaging with 'on-line' markers to indicate quick easy comms, similarly voice, to support the same sort of fast turnaround short discussions available in the workplace (eg [Sieloff]). Peripheral cues for busy and interruptible ([Dabbish and Kraut 2004 via Bos 2009]). Quickly asked questions, quickly answered (eg Sieloff). {Physical Proximity} {Fast Response}
Physical Proximity | Fast Response
Sieloff | Dabbish & Kraut 2004 via Bos 2009
Categories:
[McLaughlin 2010] as failing to support collaboration. Not always a bad thing; communication costs effort, and silos are a place to focus on a task.
Categories:
Mclaughlin as one example asserting that functional siloed approaches fail [but do they? And when they do in what way? What are the advantages] [Mclaughlin]
but, do, they?, et al | Mclaughlin
Categories:
where we know we haven''t included things in the model at all deliberately (to simplify, where we think it''s small) [Palmer 2010]
Categories:
Agent-based software simulations [as Annosi, Pascale, & Gross 2008, Al Shawa 2011, Anumba, C.J. et al. 2001, Baumgarten 2006]
as, Annosi, Pascale, et al 2006
Categories:
What existing work? Fuzzy logic. Agent based systems
Categories:
Categories: Situation
Term made famous/central by Endsley. Military for local understanding. Situation Understanding. "Cognitive Situation Awareness" appears to be the professional psychological and cognitive cross-over term eg [Durso & Sethumadhavan 2008] [Flach 1995] and [Dekker and Hollmagel 2004] caution against using catch-all labels such as "Situation awareness'' as substitutions for insight, and attempting to over-generalise from somewhat arbitrary categories. For example, the phrase ''due to loss of situation awareness'' does not explain why something went wrong: loss of SA is not the cause, though it may be a categorisation.
Durso & Sethumadhavan 2008 | Flach 1995 | Dekker & Hollmagel 2004
Categories: Context
[Rittel and Webber 1973] introduce "Wicked, intractable" complexity, which should be considered the 'standard' situations for this study. Similarly {Situation Dynamics} {Situation Ambiguity} ie in what ways it changes Number of factors and relationships and degrees of freedom; intricacy (Inspired by [SAS 050] Complexity of situation) {Ambiguity} Complexity is a {motivation} for collaborating; as [Meyer 2009] puts it, the situation is too difficult for individuals to encompass (although Meyer 2009 talks about total complexity, it's probably more accurate to say that it's too complex for the time available, rather than there being 'too much information to process'). [Kluge 2004 via Meyers 2009] (original in German) defines complex problem solving as being too difficult for pen and paper, but it's worth bearing in mind that Britain and China ran large empires with pen and paper Opposite of 'easy to understand' easy to understand, easy to comprehend, easy to identify the key point. [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011]
Situation Dynamics | Situation Ambiguity | Ambiguity | motivation
Rittel & Webber 1973 | SAS 50 | Meyer 2009 | Kluge 2004 via Meyers 2009 | Ge, Helfert & Jannach 2011
Changing relationships between knowledge, tasks, goals, the world: Executing a plan impacts the real world, thus generating new knowledge that must be fed back in to the collaborators knowledge sets, so modifying the plan and maybe the tasks and even goals (eg Bonaparte, plans and enemies). Strategy must cope with high information needs at operating ends.
Categories:
followed Devlin & Barwise work on ''Situation Theory'' as a semantic and logical construct, and derived work (such as that from Matheus and Kokar) refer to Situation Awareness concepts as semantic and logical constructs that are a description of situation or a language for describing. [Devlin & Barwise] [ Matheus & Kokar]
Devlin & Barwise | Matheus & Kokar
Categories:
For example availablity, temporal order of communications [Patrick et al 2012]
Categories:
For example the term "Muslim ban" was used by several communities in early 2017 to refer to a presidential restriction on travel. It can be used to refer to a single person refused travel who happened to be muslim, to a ban on all muslims for being muslim. The implied meaning can be slid towards the more extreme, even though muslims from the targetted countries were being allowed entry from the first arrivals following the signing onwards. , "Smoking kills"
Categories:
Limited by 'choice' or ease of access or social pressures rather than by technology or ability {Tribal Boundaries} {Othering} {Echo Chamber} {Barriers}
Tribal Boundaries | Othering | Echo Chamber | Barriers
Categories: Context
Knowledge requires social context: [Lucas 2006] strongly concludes that knowledge transfer can only be understood with social research context.
Categories:
Not explicitly studied, but strongly related amongst the various overlapping trusts, see eg [Holton 2001] Efforts to tie down what trust ''is'' in such cases is settling around vulnerability and expectation (eg [Newell 2007] [Zand 1972]; that is the acceptance that other partners can cause damage by not acting as agreed. Where such risk does not exist, there is no need for trust and so trust is irrelevant [Mayer, Sabel, Roussaeu]. All the same, not reducing information too far reduces perception of vulnerability [Thomas], more willing to rely on trustee. May still want more [Zimmerman et al 1996 through Thomas] Eg [Julsrud 2008]: establishing trust, distributing trust , structure for preserving trust: ''Trust represents a mental state characterised by confidence in the belief that others will behave in line with one''s own wishes and expectations, in situations where it is difficult for the individual to observe or control the actual actions of others'' (has ch3 reviewing trust lit) Vangen 2003, Huotari 2004, EIU 2008 {Vulnerability} and {Expectations}
Holton 2001 | Newell 2007 | Zand 1972 | Mayer, Sabel & Roussaeu | Thomas | Zimmerman, 1996, through, et al | Julsrud 2008
Categories:
eg sharepoint, wikis (up to date reference pages, rather than expertise) [(me)]
Categories:
Categories: Organisation | Proximity
A kind of {Proximity} aggregate. Includes proximity of sources from each other; can you go to one place (eg a library) to find all you need, or do you have to search several places which increases search time (eg [Holton 2001])?
Categories:
Categories: Situation | Information Transfer
[Hill]
Categories:
Specialist vs Generalist: [Turner et al 2000] who are a bit binary; you are one or the other. A characteristic of {Expertise}
Categories:
Specification Information Quality measures the extent how information is in accordance with its specification. Typically, specifications are described by data schemas, rules and references. Using these specifications, software programs can be used to assess the specification quality of raw data {Information Quality} [Ge, Helfert, Jannach 2011]
Categories:
Speech acts are somewhere between the mechanics of information transfer and social collaboration and expertise (eg Salt 2004, Austin 1955, Searle 1969) {Mechanics} [Salt 2004, Austin 1955, Searle 1969]
Salt, 2004, Austin, et al 1969
Categories: Social | Assessment
When people no longer listen to a {Red team} or devils advocates because they are always seen as opposing for the sake of it (from thought from Market Garden) {Red Team}
Categories:
Sponsored' employees: (Lucas 2006) when employees are eg promoted or placed in a new task by a sponsoring senior, senior finds the right information to support the sponsored, in order to protect the senior's reputation. {Incentives} [Lucas 2006]
In large complex datasets that will be a number of patterns and correlations that exist by accident. When searching for outliers and correlations, without understanding, these can provide 'evidence' for a theory that is broad enough to include them. For example, "Warmer weather causes good things" can be backed up by the data that shows a decrease in piracy and an average increase in temperatures over the globe over the last century, see eg [tylervigen.com] In theory this is why hypothesis are supposed to be formed first, but that does not make an effective difference (the revised or accepted hypothesis is still a post-analysis hypothesis)
Some people have no domain knowledge at all and this cannot be acquired by simply telling people a lot of stuff in one sitting; people are not sponges. Have to have stepping stones, trojan mice, introducing concepts that can then be built on. Working exercises; we understand by solving problems [Geoff Markham] Bog: dealing with supervisor who has coal mining enviornemt experience (known to be dangerous), does safety course but now when running warehouse sees it as 'not dangerous' to 'not as dangerous' environment. {Trojan Mice}
See eg [Szulanski 1996] about difficulties in transferring best practice including but not primarily {Motivation}, such as {Absorptive Capacity} {Causal Ambiguity} and {Social} issues such as poor personal relationships. concept introduced as 'sticky information' by [von Hippel 1994 via Szulanski 1996] and also possibly {Tacit Knowledge} by [Polyani]
Motivation | Absorptive Capacity | Causal Ambiguity | Social | Tacit Knowledge
Szulanski 1996 | von & Hippel 1994 via Szulanski 1996 | Polyani
Categories:
Tempting soundbite that lets the line of reasoning come to a comfortable halt. Eg "HS2 or NHS", or "Your control over your own body"
Categories:
[de Long] [ Kozlova 2011]
Categories:
DART {Re-adjusting} {dynamic} [Dodd]
Categories:
Categories:
Dividing tasks up along lines of existing convenient groups, so low level information exchange constraints are mapped onto organisation cells that reflect these. (Sieloff, Warumich) [Sieloff, Warumich]
Categories:
Categories:
Where correlation was not clear, one can confuse correlation with cause, ie in {Causal Ambiguity}. See also imitating success, eg habits of successful people or reading books written by them; their habits may not be the cause of their success (which may even be chance). However imitating success over the long term is probably more beneficial than not...
Categories: Roles | Team Arrangement
A small scale version of a {Collaboration Categories} where a team is made up of a 'prime doer' and support staff, rather than a range of 'doers' with support teams of support staff. Suggested by [Brooks 1995] not seen it attempted. Also army platoons,where junior commander officers are paired with experienced soldier sergeants, and dedicate radio operators are embedded in the same head. [Chhabra Das & Same 2011] find the benefits of such pairing in simulation. [Pickle 2006]
Brooks 1995 | Chhabra, Das & Same 2011 | Pickle 2006
Categories:
Surprise emerges from several discussions. The Good and Bad of evaluating incompatible information against background knowledge; the iconoclastic sausage [Salt]. Possibly the extreme form of {Double Loop Learning} ''Surprise might be seen as new incompatible knowledge without the time to rearrange knowledge [Storr 2009] Surprising information is likely to be more carefully scrutinised [Boiney 2005]. Tendency to reject, or be highly skeptical of, new incompatible knowledge (a kind of {Bias} but a sensible one) Attention consumed is higher Is it something new that requires remodelling the worldview? Or? something misreported that should be discarded because it doesn?t fit the worldview? Or? a deliberate deception to confuse and consume attention? How do you decide before you know which? Hindsight may be useful, but too often is just a case to show that ?sometimes we discarded something we shouldn?t? ? well yes, but often we have discarded many things we should. How do we tell which is which? Not modifying on new (incompatible) information leads to entrenchment and surprise. Always modifying on new (incompatible) information leads to lost attention, gullibility, prevarication and dithering
Salt | Storr 2009 | Boiney 2005
Categories:
Not too much, not too little, 'just right'
Categories:
Categories:
the need for software engineers to be able to speak to managers, and vice versa. [Guest 1991]
Categories: Knowledge
Tacit knowledge (as given by [Polanyi 1962]) is the knowledge that is hard to formalize and communicate. May lead to 'engrossment' [Bechky 1999] [Dougherty 1992] via [Lucas 2006]. KM needs to include both information management and tacit knowledge management (eg [Al-Hawamdeh 2002]) [Gourlay 2004] lists several meanings suggested or discovered in empirical studies {Assumptions} {ANTI:Explicit Knowledge} But should not be treated as exclusive to explicit knowledge, as there are means to elicit tacit knowledge to make it explicity (eg [Nonaka 1991]) Called 'uncognized' or 'uncongnizable' knowledge by [Collins 2001]: eg Learning to speak in the native tongue without knowing how. Passed only through apprenticeship and emulation. Also 'unrecognized' knowledge "A" performs aspects of an experiment in a certain way without realising their importantce. B picks up the same habit without realising anything important has been passed on. [Collins 2001] Other subtypes from Collins: who suggested ?mismatched saliance? looking at the wrong thing, ?ostensive knowledge? that is better pointed at than talked about and ?unrecognized knowledge? things you are doing or assuming that you don?t realise is relevant
Assumptions | ANTI:Explicit Knowledge
Polanyi 1962 | Bechky 1999 | Dougherty 1992 | Lucas 2006 | Al-Hawamdeh 2002 | Gourlay 2004 | Nonaka 1991 | Collins 2001 | Collins 2001
Categories:
Valedectory notes from departing ambassadors released on wikileaks turned out to be sensitive (Black & Bryant). Leads to flavouring of communication to fit with superiors or perceived popular acceptability.
Categories:
How well is the assessment goal understood? Eg what is the question, how ambiguous is it, etc? [me, training materials for Structured Anlaytics Techniques]
me, training, materials, et al
Categories: Organisation structure | Granularity & Scope | Roles
proportions of peopke in subunits, specialisation by teams, span of control, centralisation, network complexity, authorisations etc Sizes of teams and skills etc (See also Team Space [Mintzberg 1979] the structuring of organisations)
Categories:
Categories:
Fmiliariyt with each other and abilities and styles and capabilities. Sel-fSituation Awareness? Friendly Forces awareness. See also [SAS 050] Hardness (?check) {Team bonding} {cohesion} {common etc}
Team bonding | cohesion | common etc
Categories: Communication | Barriers
Technical Barriers/Issues to implement: eg [Aho 1996] in early days of internet and google etc, but issues remain: scalability (better now), integrating mulitple media sets, organising and integrating 'knowledge' (jargon, etc), integrating systems and evolving them, quality, searching, universal access
Categories:
Technology vs Social: (eg Blankenship, Ruona 2009) studies are moving from technology focused strategies to social ones. [Not sure this is very well borne out, but certainly sudden step changes in possibilities opened by technical innovations may have pulled focus about]. [Blankenship, Ruona 2009]
Not, sure, this, et al | Blankenship & Ruona 2009
Categories:
Mechanical/Technical vs Social: Lucas 2006 p8 [false dichotamy? different viewpoints? or different aspects?]. Simon Bray''s 2010 talks about information flow; typical perhaps of ESII/CIBM approaches (reflecting British DSTL approach?). The use of controlled language via drills (eg ''voice procedure'') - defining unambiguous specific language [technical] is that it struggles to cope with situations that it was not defined for. Speech acts. {Information Flow} [Lucas 2006 p8] [ Bray 2010] [ (british army doctrine)]
false, dichotamy?, different, et al | technical | Lucas 2006 p8 | Bray 2010 | (british, army & doctrine)
Categories:
Technology enablers and consequences: Collaboration tools phone conversations/email/shared graphing space vs letters, letters require devolution rather than collaboration due to time differences, but that's a kind of collaboration. Whiteboarding, shared documents. Where enabling causes problems (eg situation invisibility), but is this better than not enabling. Same data sets: Reference/Common documents, same data sets to refer to (eg maps), audit...
Categories:
Technology/Social interactions are not one way; technology opens opportunities for social collaboration, and social needs direct technology. Some technology gaps (ie, where the social needs direct the technology) are established. ''SocioTechnical Systems'' eg [Kurapati et al 2012] Common term in physical design of buildings [Kurapti et al 2012]
Kurapati & et al 2012 | Kurapti & et al 2012
Categories:
eg Matsuo & Easterby-Smith 2008, on customising sharing
Categories:
People are normally honest. Freakonomics and Paul Feldman and his bagels (Louise Vouexx what? from audio]
Categories:
Categories:
Tribalism & Utility: People form groups and subgroups (granularity) of ''us'' and ''them'' with even small perceptions of differences and tend to favour people that they know which can give ''less than optimal performance''. Relationships can be to groups rather than individuals. (Bos 2009 p21) "ad-hom arguments in the service of boundary work among climate scientists" refers to Merton {Tribes} [Bos 2009]
Categories:
As information Ambiguity but to how we think things interract {Confidence} {Relevance} {Accuracy} {correctness} [SAS 050 has 'mental models']
Confidence | Relevance | Accuracy | correctness
Categories:
Categories:
[TODO: break out from characteristics of time that affect other categories] For example, compare timeliness with distributing over time (ie writing a document for later, or dynamics that affect organisations eg churn)
Categories:
Time as well as network space may be relevant for knowledge distribution, especially where there is a discontinuity (eg preserving Fast Reactor skills).
Categories: Barriers | Proximity | Response Time | Communication
Delays, ''holding'', preserving; distributing over time: [Lucas 2006, p21] Possibly maybe outside scope, but maybe not. Preserving knowledge in a high-churn group is part of the military problem at least. Eg lost NI knowledge between reduced ops there and start of ops in Afghanistan [Nolan 2012, p224]. Fast Reactor Knowledge Preservation. [de Long 2015] "Sustaining our Nuclear Skills" {Organisation Memory} {Forgetting}
Organisation Memory | Forgetting
Lucas 2006 p21 | Nolan 2012 p224 | de & Long 2015
Categories:
A view of events based primarily on time (rather than space or social relationships, etc) {History}
Categories: Time
In two forms; (1) rhythm-of-battle and decision-cycles are based on regular decision points, and if information is not provided before then it is not "timely" (a boolean "in time" vs "too late"). (2) the faster you can assimilate a workable understanding, the faster you can make decisions and 'surprise' [Jim Storr] {Surprise} {Decision Cycle} {Rhythm of Battle} From Lorraine; the difference between chiros and chronos
Surprise | Decision Cycle | Rhythm of Battle
Categories:
Timeliness: Time (concept) eg Dewey and Boiney 2005 and lots of other military texts on collaboration. [Dewey & Boiney 2005 and SAS 050 as Awareness Timeliness]
Categories:
Immediacy, Change, cycles and iterations. Possibly belongs more in decision making section, but Knowledge as a feed to the decision making cycle (eg Dewey). The care that should be applied to the 'cycle' concept; 'inside the enemies decision cycle' implies there needs to be iteration. Storr 2009 calls this dangerous; that sudden strikes are better than iteration, although attrition is fine as long as it's your enemy that is attrited. Timeliness is important for decision making '' what knowledge can be taken on board ''in time'' for it to still be relevant, even if all of it cannot (eg Storr); decision making should not be seen as something that has to be made by a certain time (battle rhythm, ''getting inside the enemies OODA loop'') but the trade off between earlier less informed decisions and later better informed decisions (Storr). [Storr 2009]
Categories:
Timeliness refers not just ''in time for a decision'' but include concepts of being able to make decisions sooner, or better ones all the time, especially when competing or conflicting (eg Storr). Also knowledge goes stale.
Categories:
Timing is not just about tasking & decisions; volatility of information (lost reference dammit); information/knowledge goes stale, becomes obsolete. Also not about ''in time for a decision'' but the quicker you can make a decision the better especially when competing or conflicting (eg Storr, change since WW2 from 12ish hours from plan to execution at div level, to 36-48 '' despite better tech, p116)
Categories:
current, up to date, delivered on time, timely. (4 items)
Categories:
Pull'/Just In Time access by lookup to 'current practice' when required rather than being bombarded by continuous uncoordinated change updates (viz academia) - Sieloff {Reference} {Timeliness} [Sieloff]
Categories:
Grassroots and/or Top down: Headquarter-enforced strategies and policies are ''critical to disseminating new technologies and practices'' (Adenfelta & Lagerstromb 2006, Bjorkman 2004) but some studies show peer-peer methods can grow policies organically rather than via directives (eg Maximini, Trier and see also "I Pencil"). [Adenfelta & Lagerstromb 2006, Bjorkman 2004] [ Maximini, Trier]
Adenfelta, Lagerstromb, 2006, et al 2004 | Maximini & Trier
de Long
Categories:
Information does not 'flow' across knowledge networks; it is transformed by background knowledge, context, purpose, demands, etc at each vertex {Anti:information flow}
Categories:
Categories: Social | Barriers | Boundaries
The ways in which various tribes (social groups) or technical skills, or communities of practice, or expertise groups, and so on have trouble communication outside the group that can result in frustration and behaviour that makes it worse, eg with climate scientists ([Souder 2012] and refers to [Merton]). {Tribes} {Othering} {Barriers}
Categories:
Hyperbole, {Groupthink} and biased thinking can cause {Boundary mistranslation} where {Boundary Spanner}s provide a strongly slanted story that is accepted by the tribe without checks. For example (find refs): Tim Hunt, Boris Johnson's thing about Obama, Ken Livingstone's anti-semitism, Thatcher closing the coal mines.
Groupthink | Boundary mistranslation | Boundary Spanner
Categories:
Categories:
Categories:
Passing knowledge in small, easy to assimilate lumps that do not trigger automatic rejections. Sometimes a form of political correctness, where this happens subconsciously, eg Slow incremental change rather than objective; eg millikan's experiments; Conforming 'mostly', fear of radical [Feynam's Cargo Cult address to caltech 1974]
Feynam's, Cargo, Cult, et al 1974
Categories: Knowledge
As this requires a notion of 'truth' that is not possible in principle, these requirements seem too strong for practical purposes. The on-running discussion eg [Schnee 2015] of these terms in the philosophical domain, while {Knowledge Management} has been in commercial and academic use for some decades now, suggests this is a rabbit-hole that might be interesting but is not useful.
Categories:
Categories:
Multi-dimension category covering various measures of how much confidence can be placed in (input) information or (output) assessments, and sub-parts of them. [Zaheer et al 1998 p143] suggest interpersonal and interorganisational elements of {reliability} {predicability} which are related to each other (?) and to expectations under vulnerability, and fairness. Each made up of three approaches: cognitive, behavioural and social. Trust leads to faster/easier acceptance, fewer receiver checks, less discussion [Earley 1986] [Zaheer et al 1998] [Holton 2001] covers a range of trusts including {Social Trust} and, interestingly, involves the team with the outputs of her surveys, and this gives them time and dialogue to reflect and develop their goals, improving team bonding (which is not just social, as it helps develop commonly understood goals and expectations).
reliability | predicability | Social Trust
Zaheer & et al 1998 p143 | Earley 1986 | Zaheer & et al 1998 | Holton 2001
Categories:
Categories:
Categories: Organisation
Sgt & Officer, Project Tech and Project Manager (which are Project Lead?). From observation.
Categories:
Concluding something exists when it doesn't
Categories:
Conclduing something doesn't exist when it does
Categories: Situation | Picture
Layman's introduction by [O'Hagan 2004]. An issue of {Trustworthiness} is how well these are understood and communicated; what in my {picture} is not known but has been filled with assumptions, for example. Uncertainty is a large, relevant can of worms (even in the simple world of automatic systems, see eg [Baxter 2009] ) (Candidate characteristc list [Eriksson 2009] ) Uncertainty is not special? - sometimes explicitly discussed, but assumed in most papers that knowledge is to be discussed and dissected and updated and revised. See eg [Morgan 2009] talk about uncertainty tho - frequentist is not always useful, see eg "uncertainty and decision making" in downloads. relationship with trustworthiness. dodgy fig 1.1 - 'amount of evidence' very subjective to investigating bias, eg posaitve bias in medical, and 'well established' is not the same as correct
O'Hagan 2004 | Baxter 2009 | Eriksson 2009 | Morgan 2009
Categories:
Learning about KD takes time; academic study can run years behind practice [de Castro Neto]
Categories:
If you are not knowledgeable about it, then changing it can have unforeseen consequences. Similarly implementations; eg Bray''s controlled language; how does this cope with changed circumstances
Categories:
Knowing what is universal (within the relevant space) and so can be transferred. With the solid sciences we know for example that gravity does not change much in a room, so we can run a ticker tape type experiment anywhere in it, and if we get different results we know that the there is something wrong with the equipment. Transferring between groups of people or cultures or projects or military operations is harder to work out what is universal between them and what is local
Categories:
Categories: Knowledge Transfer | Picture
Can lead to 'random drift' if the updates (especially learned behaviours, eg {Routines} in organisations) are changed before the situation was understood [Lounamaa & March 1987 via Levitt & March 1988]
Lounamaa & March 1987 via Levitt & March 1988
Categories:
Validation (eg Earl) - who validates shared knowledge [earl]
Categories:
Categories:
beneficial, valuable, add value to operations. (3 items)
Categories:
See [Heiman] who called this a 'serial model' (as in logic gates). Vetos like this reduce the chance of Type I errors (accepting a hypothesis that is false) but increases the chance of Type II errors (rejecting a hypothesis that is true). See also the opposite: {Mandate Redundancy}
Categories:
Where performance indicators are set, and then used to drive change directly. eg an admin booking code, and then pressure to reduce booking to that code rather than pressure to fix things that take admin time. So performance indicators change, but the same effort is still distracted, but is now hidden in other tasks
Categories:
[de Long]
Categories: Assimilation
Common term. Military example in [Walker et al 2013] visualising human terrain, a particularly complex dataset and often alien to the analyst.
Bounded Ignorance; "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty" [Adams] {Explicit Ignorance}
Categories:
From Market Garden
Categories:
Scenario generators from eg the Quick Wins Scenario Prediction method [DIA 2013] include 'wild' options to help think outside the normal.
Categories:
{Assimilation} [Markham]