2 Responses

  1. avatar
    Mike McHugh at |

    I have a number of comments:
    a) What about the semantics here? It seems that what you have is an extremely simple ‘model’ that uses just 2 symbols: an ‘object’ (which can have attributes), and a ‘flow (which should also have attributes, but not are shown).
    b) The model illustrates a top-down or dispersal topology, with the source of knowledge being a central entity and the target for knowledge receipt being somewhere else, presumed to know less than the center (which, of course, I contest).
    c) In this notation, I wonder about alternate types of ‘object’ – merely because your model only supplies some attribute headings to the “Knowledge Required” object. What about the others? It would seem to me to be more complete either to differentiate ‘objects’ into “knowledge” and others… then there might be a set of attributes that belong to “knowledge” and another set belonging to “others” (of which there might be more than one type, hence more than one set of attributes for “others”).
    d) Perhaps my biggest concern is about the “flows”, which I think might be better termed “interactions”. After all, in your model, I would expect the sum of knowledge targets to know more / have more knowledge than the central entity which you show as the knowledge source. Consequently, I can imagine at least three types of interaction involving knowledge flows: i) outbound/dispersal, ii) inbound/knowledge capture, and iii) knowledge sharing/real-time conversational exchange of knowledge.

    As a result of these comments, I’d say that your notation needs to be both richer (in terms of symbology) and more definitive (in terms of the semantics of the symbols and/or the terms being used).

    The way I see this at the moment, I’d rather use a process model and attribute tasks or actions with the a) pre-requisite and b) consumed knowledge for each. I think I’d find that more helpful. There’s some way to go in making this work beyond a simplistic and somewhat IA-oriented picture of orthodox information push to the worker bees.

  2. avatar
    David Williams at |

    Many thanks for your constructive and thought-provoking comments. Sorry in not responding back sooner.
    the objective was to provide something that was both simple and granular to enable students to unpick what is happening in an organisational situation. Also, there are no objects, knowledge occurs in Popper’s World 2 and is conceptual, not physical.
    there has been a bit written about types of knowledge, (Holsapple and Whinston (1996) & Zack (1999) , De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational psychologist, 31(2), 105-113. https://blog.udemy.com/types-of-knowledge/ ) – but I am yet to be convinced that they have has any value than the basic Why, How, Who etc
    I am not uncomfortable about the term knowledge flow for this model and consider that it may not always be an interaction. However, in attribute 5 I do note that it may be.

    I’ll have a bit more of the think about your comments


Leave a Reply

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