6 Responses

  1. avatar
    Harold van Garderen at |

    Hi William, I really like your AKI model, if only because it breaks the nonsensical hierarchy of DIKW and introduces “action” as source of information, not knowledge directly.

    This way the “liveware” becomes the sole place of knowledge, nicely separated from information/data/signals into which you rightfully place software too.

    There is however one thing that seems missing here and that is the physical , f.e. the Loy Yang power station. A lot of knowledge goes into this human construct through action, but the result is NOT information only as the result become part of the physical world that both constraints future actions (it would be a bit stupid to build a rural hideway next to the power station) and enables new actions (as power gets more reliable the surroundings become a better place to live).

    So I wonder how the physical world and changes therein fit into the AKI model.

  2. avatar
    David.J Williams at |

    A really good questions Harold. The model is informed by Karl Popper’s 3 world theory where both actions and the physical exist in World 1.
    The construction of Loy Yang was an event (action) that created knowledge amongst the people that were there (me included). Its existence and operation is recorded (Information) and can be observed/researched (an action) to gain additional knowledge to support the making of a decision (an action) to build a rural hideaway.

    My thoughts are that the physical world does not contribute to knowledge unless there is some action (observation, experience, experiment)

    Does that answer your question?

    1. avatar
      Stephen Bounds at |

      Hi Harold & David,

      I interpret the interactions of the physical world to David’s model like this:

      – Information – interpretation of the physical world through sensory input
      – knowledge – informed predictions about the physical world
      – action – work to change the physical world

      After action, of course, new information is received in response to whether the physical world changed in the way we expected. Then we go round the cycle again.

      In Popperian terms, the model describes the construction of World 2 representations of World 1 in order for us to better act upon it.

  3. avatar
    Md Santo at |

    Tacit Knowledge as well as Explicit Knowledge within DIKW continuum model have a weakness. If they are regarded as scientific variable, they’re just Nominal Data scale having lower possibilty to get comprehensive quantitattive and expanded research.

    I use KM framework model driven with Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology as well as Human Biology called as Human System Biology-based KM (HSB_KM) where we recognize 3 (three) kinds of Human Knowledge derived from Body-Mind-Soul namely Knowledge with Lower Consciousness (KLC), Knowledge with Medium Consciousness (KMC) and Knowledge with Higher Consciousness (KHC) respectively. KMC pratically regarded as Tacit Knowledge based on DIKW continuum. Within HSB_KM model after we gave Weighting Score (WS) 1 : 3 : 5 to each type of Human Knowledge (HK), it came up as Interval Data within Relative Value Scaling Ratio. It finally converted into Ratio Data within Absolute Value Scaling Ratio by using Thurstone method. By this way, it is open to much more comprehensive and expanded study of science beyond Human Knowledge (HK) toward Nature Knowledge (NK) and involving trans disciplinary efforts.

    See : Why Knowledge Revisited Matters : Upstream Science environment – URL http://ow.ly/Wtsxo and Discovering epistemological-driven Upstream Science or ontological-driven Knowledge Science : Renaissance in Science – http://ow.ly/X8AD3

  4. avatar
    Bill Kaplan at |

    Makes a lot of sense! Simple and clear.

    1. avatar
      David.J Williams at |

      Thanks Bill
      Love your work!


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.