C H A PT E R 5

Knowledge “Acts”

5.1 QUESTION ASKING AND ANSWERING

Question asking and answering is a foundational process by which what people know tacitly becomes expressed, and hence, externalized as knowledge. In adapting the theory, Hirschheim et al. [1995] describe types of speech acts that pertain to aspects of either Knowledge Management (KM), or Information Management (IM). For example, Boahene and Ditsa [2003] suggest that Information Management systems target a base of expressive speech acts by mainly supporting the recall of meaning-attribution while Knowledge Management systems target regulative and constantive speech acts primarily to support the organization and management of dynamic complexity. They reason that IM addresses questions such as ‘Where,’ ‘Who,’ ‘When,’ and ‘What,’ while KM targets problems involving dynamic complexity,

 addressing solutions to questions such as ‘How’ and ‘Why.’

Another category of questions, “What-if,” will also fall in the domain of knowledge activity. Since such questions necessitate predicting and prioritizing outcomes, attempts to address such “what-if ” questions will require integrating understanding of “what” with “why” and “how” to arrive at reasonable resolution.

5.2 POSTING CONTENTTOREPOSITORIES

Contributing content such as lessons-learned, project experiences, and success stories is another approach to knowledge sharing. O’Dell and Jackson [1998] point out the importance of frameworks for classifying information.For example, they note that Chevron and other groups organize information in their best practice databases using the Process Classification Framework developed by APQC (American Productivity and Quality Council) and Arthur Andersen. since busy professionals rarely have the time to enter a practice into the database unless it is their job.On the other hand, professionals may not have the time to hand off a document for submission to an appointed surrogate either. For many professionals who are used to online communication and accessing databases and discussion lists, we could argue that it is quicker and easier for the professionals to make the contribution themselves. The authors point out that the product supports both the construction of knowledge as content, or as the collaborative, negotiated, co-constructed approach to verifying and validating content, essentially accommodating both the content and process views of knowledge construction. The developed content is then made available to others for (re)use, or, for re-combination, to support newinstances of knowledge creation. As awareness increases for the importance of making knowledge explicit, more and more products will appear to help with creating knowledge bases and decision recommendations, but it is a mindset open to using, sharing, and creating knowledge that will make a difference in creating an organizational knowledge culture.

5.3 (RE)USINGKNOWLEDGE

Desouza et al. [2006] assert that the decision to consume knowledge can be framed as a problem of risk evaluation, with perceived complexity and relative advantage being identified as factors relating to intentions to “consume” knowledge. However, it is essential that the knowledge consumer is able to reasonably frame his or her knowledge needs. They recognize the notion of information value, allowing for the matching of information to the knowledge needs of the user. They propose that good representations of both information characteristics and user characteristics are essential.

5.4 KNOWLEDGE-BASEDDECISIONMAKING

In general, decision making involves identifying alternatives, projecting probabilities and outcomes of alternatives, and evaluating outcomes according to known preferences and implications for stakeholders. Shared meanings and purposes as well as newknowledge and capabilities, converge on decision making as the activity leading to the selection and initiation of action. Choo further proposes that information flows are a central process that bridges knowledge creation and decision making activity. Information flows continuously between sense making, knowledge creating, and decision making, so that the outcome of information use in one mode provides the elaborated context and the expanded resources for information use in the other modes [Choo, C., 2002, p. 85]. In such decision oriented activity, we have proposed that “what-if ” questions are the dominant type of speech act performed.Support for such scenario predicting questions will demand rich context upon which to apply knowledge of the past and the present to bear on the problem or situation at hand.