The science of epistemology has evolved over the past two millennia, generating categorizations and generalizations about the sorts of things that can be defined as knowledge. However, in a situation such as a workshop, where people are being invited to examine their own knowledge and the people round about them, a more simple method of analysis is required.
Even when conducting a full-scale knowledge audit – where quite detailed input may need to be gathered on what information organizations possess, and on the overall climate for fostering, sharing and capturing information (and by extension, how people act on this information and turn it into personally held knowledge) – a simple framework still has some validity, though it may need to be supplemented by other approaches. In fact, any practical frameworks that assist a project by clarifying, simplifying, standardizing, and enhanc- ing knowledge understanding will deliver benefits.
We will come to leveraging the outputs of attempts to classify knowledge later, but in the meantime want to introduce a
method of classification – the six investigators. This goes beyond a simple classification of knowledge into ‘explicit’ and
‘tacit’ categories and allows us to dig a little deeper into how knowledge is created, used and shared. In IT and business- related projects this greater understanding can be invaluable.
1.3.1 The six investigators
Skyrme and Amidon (1997) have produced a framework of six different types of knowledge, building on the five investigator questions (Know-how, Know-who, Know-when, Know-where, Know-why) plus a sixth, ‘Know-that’. Of these ‘Know-that’ is the closest to ‘wisdom’ as shown in the previous ‘pyramid’
figure, p. 13. When using the following questions they can help identify certain areas that are essential to performance, yet are weak within the organization.
An approach based on these questions has been widely used by the authors to structure workshop or interview sessions geared at building a picture of knowledge within organizations. These concepts are easy to grasp, yet when pursued in depth can provide a great deal of material which can be captured or used to illustrate a new way of thinking about people’s roles within organizations.
In workshops, the six investigators can be presented as the following (this is the order typically used in workshops):
Know-how
How well do people know how to get things done? This may be explicitly stated in written organizational procedures but, in practice, much of it will be found only in people’s heads (i.e. in
‘tacit’ form). Everyone knows much more than they can easily describe: for example, almost any common task (running a meeting, writing an email) requires people to perform a number of sequential steps – but this process is seldom if ever written down, as we assume most people ‘know how’ to do it. We may think we hire people on the basis of their formal qualifications – but the real measure of suitability is experience, ‘know-how’ – of having done something comparable in the past. In terms of competitive advantage, company know-how may be hard to define but is precisely that factor that can’t be easily written down or easily taken away from its context and replicated elsewhere.
Know-who
How well do people know who to ask? Assuming that significant know-how exists only in people’s heads, access to people (the right people) becomes crucial. For example, how do workers know whom to ask when faced with a specific problem? How did they first find out whom to ask? This knowledge of people is ‘know-who’.
Depending on the culture and size of the organization, access to know-who knowledge may be easy (a directory look-up, a simple phone call to one person) or extremely difficult (no systems, or a ‘silo’ approach to management where there is little access to expertise outside the immediate group of co-workers).
Knowing ‘who’ can help with a specific task can enhance organizational performance enormously (just as ‘not knowing’
can be a significant blocker to progress or in worst cases lead to reinventing the wheel or otherwise repeating a significant chunk of work).
Like other categories, successful ‘know-who’ knowledge relies on interpretation skills – reading the runes of the organization, being able to understand which skills or strengths to seek out, understanding the various contexts in which knowledge can exist within the organization. This can be primarily through individuals’ personal networks, or through contact databases, or directories of expertise. Since the overwhelming majority of organizational knowledge lives in people’s heads, addressing
‘know-who’ knowledge should be a priority of any knowledge management programme.
There can be substantial and immediate benefits to this. An example was a consultancy group – not a large group, only about 50 people – who implemented a directory of expertise.
The group had recently sent a team to Russia to do some work there for the Russian government. Once they had the directory of expertise up and running they found out that they had a fluent Russian speaker among the group who had not been sent on the trip – a big opportunity wasted to get behind the scenes and engage better with their hosts, to say nothing of the additional language translation costs.
Know-why
How well do people know why they are doing something?The wider context and the vision, the value system and sense of purpose that exists within organizations. This ‘context’ knowledge
allows individuals to go about unstructured tasks in the most appropriate ways. An example is doing what is right by a customer rather than slavishly following a procedure. In a wider context, this might also involve being in tune with the wider philosophy – the mission and vision – of an organization.
Most individuals join or elect to stay with organizations that on some level match their personal beliefs and goals. It is becoming more and more important for organizations to be able to communicate what they stand for, what their principles are, to employees, customers and their wider stakeholders. In addition, clear business goals must be expressed and communicated to staff. If employees are working in alignment with the goals, objectives and overall ethos of the company, this is an important component of organizational success.
This is a context where techniques such as storytelling can be quite powerful. The stories, myths and legends told and retold within an organization tell staff and newcomers a great deal about how the company views itself, what it will take to ‘fit in’
and which behaviours are acceptable, and which are not.
Know-that
How well do people instinctively know that a course of action is the right one? The basic sense of knowing. It represents accepted
‘facts’ (perhaps acquired through formal channels such as training courses and formal education) but also experience. A skilled repair person, for example, instinctively knows that the cause of a problem is likely to be found in a particular component. ‘Know-that’ knowledge is often best expressed or understood in peer communities – for example, groups of scientists, engineers or doctors possess their own vocabulary or ethical code which might not be in wide currency in the organization in which they belong, but is very important in their own professional community.
Know-when
How well do people know when to do something, and when not to?A sense of timing. For example, skilled stock market operators seem to have the knack of buying when everyone else is selling.
Their ability to know-when to do something can differentiate them above their work colleagues. Some companies have made a virtue of their timing of takeovers and market entry strategies.
Know-where
How well do people know where to find what they need?A mixture of basic information management skills and knowledge of how to navigate information (on systems and on paper) specific to the workplace or wider organization. Knowing where to go to find key information in a bid situation or when problems occur can make an enormous difference to performance and customer satisfaction.