Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 10, No. 1, March 2009
A
Framework For The Selection Of Knowledge Mapping
Techniques
Mostafa Jafari, Peyman Akhavan, Atieh Bourouni, Roozbeh Hesam Amiri,
Iran University
of Science and Technology, Tehran
ABSTRACT:
Knowledge mapping is one of the important processes in knowledge management.
Before applying any knowledge mapping technique, organizations must be sure of
its success and effectiveness. There are different techniques for knowledge
mapping. Obviously, no technique can claim that it has an integrated approach
in mapping knowledge and also it can take into account all aspects. Therefore
organizations should select a mapping technique which has efficiency in them.
In this paper, a framework for the selection of the most appropriate knowledge
mapping technique is proposed. With use of this framework, practitioners are
able to compare different techniques in order to facilitate the selection
process for their organizations. The value of this framework is that, with use
of it, organisations can evaluate their knowledge
mapping technique with respect to the key features of it before implementing
any technique as well as expending extra costs.
Keywords: Knowledge
mapping, Comparison framework, Techniques
1. Introduction
For many years, several researchers have expressed the importance of
knowledge mapping, applications, and its techniques (Wexler, 2001; Eppler, 2001; Huijsen et al.,
2004b). Only few papers have discussed about how organizations and companies
can select a suitable technique for mapping their knowledge (Cross et al.,
2001; Huijsen et al., 2004a; Vail, 1999; Wexler,
2001). The purpose of this paper is to present a framework for knowledge
mapping techniques comparison for knowledge management practitioners. This work
also depicts that how organization can use such a framework. The purpose of
knowledge mapping comparison can be summarized in two objects:
¨
Academic purpose: for better
understanding of the nature of techniques in order to do the classifications
and improve knowledge mapping process;
¨
Practical purpose: to select a
technique or part of one or more techniques for specific application in an
organization.
These two reasons are not separated from each other. It hops that academic
studies help in practical selections and practical reasons have influence on
used criterion in academic studies (Avison,
2006).
One of the definitions of knowledge map is presented here (Anon, 2003):
“A knowledge map is the intellectual infrastructure for knowledge
management initiatives. The basis for it
consists of multiple taxonomies for content repositories, dynamic
categorization of people, their expertise, and the communities they belong to,
and finally a set of taxonomies for the variety of tasks that are performed
within and by the company’s communities.
The taxonomies of content, people, and tasks then have to be mapped
across the three components in order to provide a foundation for such knowledge
management enterprise projects as knowledge retrieval for both document based
knowledge and the tacit knowledge located within the minds of the company
experts.”
Knowledge mapping is defined as the process, methods and tools for analyzing
knowledge areas in order to discover features or meaning and to visualize them
in a comprehensive, transparent form such that the business-relevant features
are clearly highlighted (Speel & al, 1999). It
can be defined as a process of surveying, assessing and linking the
information, knowledge, competencies and proficiencies held by individuals and
groups within an organization (Hylton, KeKma-Training, 2002).
Nevertheless, there is no research which has been done on how to help
knowledge managers for taking a proper kind of knowledge mapping technique.
This article describes a novel framework which can be applied in knowledge
management projects. It forms one the main steps in knowledge mapping and helps
knowledge managers to select their suitable technique in regard to
technique’s features.
The rest of the paper is set out as follows. In the next section, some
knowledge mapping techniques have been explained. Following that, the results
of a survey is depicted in order to identify the most important criteria. Then,
comparison framework is built and techniques are compared with the presented
framework.
2. Knowledge Mapping
Techniques
There are different techniques to map existing organizational knowledge.
Each of these techniques uses a set of tools, approaches, objectives, and
specific characteristics. In this section, these techniques are introduced
concisely.
2.1. Yellow Paging
The yellow pages facility is a structural collection of data and documents
about people in an organization. It is an effective way to know who knows what
in an organization. The purpose of yellow pages is to facilitate communication
and knowledge sharing between individuals and groups of people in
organizations. Many organizations have their own yellow paging applications,
which enable employees to find and communication with each other and with
particular expertise and skills (Mikolajuk, 2005).
This method has some weaknesses, 1) problems in quality reviewing or existing
knowledge of people; 2) maintenance, like up-to-dating information in system.
The underling reasons are as follows (Iske, 2005):
¨
The systems are not integrated in
the business processes;
¨
There is no connection between the
context of entering information and the context of using information;
¨
The information providers need to
be pro-active in keeping the system up-to-date.
2.2. Information Flow Analysis
Information flow analysis determines who is accessing what information
resources and how often by researching in organization’s functional
process and informal networks. This process can be put into practice by use of
complex computer programs (Lutters, 2002).
Some techniques can provide the same information. Examples of them may be
using sign-out sheets to capture real world usage information and taking
advantage of questionnaires and interviews which include these questions about
a specific topic (Maccall, 2006):
¨
Where do you refer when you need
information on it?
¨
What resources do you use on it
most of the time?
¨
Who or where do you submit
information on it to?
2.3. Social Network Analysis
Social Network Analysis (SNA) can be defined as a map and a measuring of
relationships and flows between people, groups, organizations, computers, or
other information or knowledge processing entities (Pollock, 2002). The nodes
in the network are the people and groups and the links show relationships or
flows between the nodes. SNA provides both a visual and a mathematical analysis
of complex human systems. It is one of the methods used to understand networks
and their participants are to evaluate the location of actors in the network.
SNA try to understand how tacit knowledge was broadcasted and how it can be
improved. SNA also enable managers to understand and exhibit thousand relations
which facilitate or prevent creation or transfer knowledge.
After doing SNA we can answer to these questions (Cross, 2002): How does
information flow in an organization? To whom do people turn for advice? Have
subgroups emerged that are sharing what they know as effectively as they
should?
2.4. Process Knowledge Mapping
Process knowledge mapping is a method of analysis to define the knowledge
needed and the knowledge available to support a business process. It also
analyzes a business process to identify decision milestones (where knowledge is
needed), knowledge requirements (what knowledge is needed), routes for access
and retrieval of knowledge through people and technology and gaps between
required skills and current skills (USAID,
2003). In this technique, we can identify individual organizational
processes and their steps, the position of the person performing the step, main
skills and training which the person should have it in specific position,
experiences and expertise for position, needed resources and procedures or
actions that should be carried out by applying it. In the other word, we use
job analysis in this technique to mapping knowledge.
2.5. Functional Knowledge
Mapping
Functional knowledge mapping is a step by step process which supports
details. It is very similar to process knowledge mapping but functional
knowledge mapping stresses on the person in the position. By using of this
technique we can list individual’s knowledge and social contacts which
are related to the specific position. It also aids us to determine individuals
having skills, experiences, academic educations and other resources which can
be applicable in other areas or who may be useful or possessing knowledge about
that position. Therefore functional knowledge mapping creates an organizational
directory of skills, knowledge, individual’s relationships and resources.
When using this technique, we should prepare interviews or survey to gather the
needed data.
One of the advantages of mapping knowledge using two last techniques is that
one can find gaps between what she needs and what is in reality for individuals
holding specific positions. These gaps can be seen in education, training,
experience, and resources (Maccall, 2006).
3. Comparison Methodology
As discussed before, there are different techniques with their own special
characteristics. These characteristics are greatly different in practical
aspects. Using each of these techniques might result in different knowledge
maps with different characteristics. Therefore we should select a technique to
map organization's existing knowledge which supports our expectations and
adapts for the organization’s characteristics.
3.1. Suggested Criteria
Knowledge mapping techniques can be compared in many different ways. In this
section, some comparison criteria are suggested. Theses criteria are:
¨
Used tools for data gathering:
A key element of this framework can be the identification of tools used in a
methodology for data gathering (Vestal, 2005).
¨
Used tools for knowledge map
evaluation: These tools help analyzer to assess the knowledge map
validation (Vestal, 2005).
¨
Objectives: Several
objectives can be achieved when undertaking a knowledge mapping exercise.
Practitioners are often faced with the dilemma of having to work with a
knowledge mapping approach that is not intended nor adapted to the objectives
they are pursuing. Therefore, the suitable technique with adopted objective
should be taken (Lecocq, 2006).
¨
Characteristics, capabilities:
The word “capabilities” is used to refer to the different functions
and solutions that a knowledge mapping tool can offer. General and visual
aspects of the represented knowledge assets which are the characteristic of any
knowledge map are discussed as specific features for the representation of a
network (Lecocq, 2006).
¨
Users: they include the
members of the organization who need to access and use knowledge in their daily
work. They are the ones who take advantage and benefit the most from the
knowledge that is made accessible through the knowledge map (Lecocq, 2006).
¨
Knowledge map elements:
Knowledge map does not contain the knowledge itself. We should determine in
which techniques what the possible components of a knowledge map are, as well
as the type of knowledge they represent and the assets they are linked to (Lecocq, 2006).
¨
Knowledge mapping approaches:
There are three approaches to mapping knowledge (Jennings, 2005). These are process-based
which is determined where we do work which predominantly repeats a predefined
process, relationship-based which is determined where the work we do is
primarily about managing a set of relationships, and project-based which is
determined where the work we do is to complete a particular (usually
substantial) project which, although process may play a role, is substantially
different to others and unlikely to be repeated.
¨
Top-down or bottom-up approach:
To mapping knowledge, we can apply two different approaches which are acquired
two type map. Top-down map championing processes usually have those at the top
of the hierarchy championing a map. In the other hand, Bottom-up knowledge map
processes are seen by the dominant coalition of the organization as the most
political (Wexler, 2001).
¨
Create static or dynamic
knowledge map: Jeong-Han Woo (2004) applied
dynamic knowledge map concepts to experts’ knowledge reusing. Knowledge
map has two dynamic and static sides (Gómez, 2000).
The dynamic side focuses on the process of the knowledge and the static side
focuses on the elementary attributes which are unchangeable such as contextual
information (Liang, 2007).
¨
Strategic or tactical view:
We can build a knowledge map with a well-known dimension used to analyze
organizations: strategic orientation which includes tactical and strategic
views (Hornett, 2006).
¨
Support individual, group or
organizational knowledge: There are many researches which are applied
individuals (persons relevant to the organization), group (any groups of
persons!) and organizational knowledge in them (Driessen,
2007; Hornett, 2006; Belsis, 2005; Walton, 2006; Putz, 2004).
¨
Support tacit or explicit
knowledge: Nonaka and Takeuchi identify tacit and
explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is defined as action-based, entrained in
practice, and therefore cannot be easily explained or described, but is
considered to be the fundamental type of knowledge on which organizational
knowledge is built (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Choo, 1998) and Explicit knowledge is defined as knowledge
that can be codified, easily communicated and shared (Martensson,
2000).
3.2. Criteria Selection
In order to build and verify a comparison framework, experts' opinions are
used. For this purpose, a designed questionnaire which is presented in Figure 1
was distributed between more that 50 experts. These experts are selected by
browsing the related literature about knowledge mapping and associated fields
of study. Obviously, they are from different countries and cultures which are
depicted in Figure 2. Furthermore, the experts’ educations’
distribution is also depicted in Figure 3.
Figure 1: Questionnaire
By use of a ranking technique, we graded questionnaire’s choices. In
these questionnaires "1" is represented as “Not
Important” and 5 as “Very Important”. In Table 1, a part of
results are shown. Amounts of aij present
the value of the i feature
which is dedicated by jth expert.
In order to select the features of comparison framework, these steps are
followed:
Average of each of matrix rows (mi). the values of mi
are:
(m1=4.375, m2=4.375, m3=4.5, m4=3.25,
m5=3.5, m6=3.875, m7=4.125, m8=3.5,
m9=4, m10=3.5, m11=3.75, m12=4)
Average of mi to calculate the mean of all
values (
).
Determine features that are greater than or equal to M. as shown, m1,
m2, m3, m7, m9 and m12
follow of this proviso (
). Therefore, the following features are selected:
¨
used tools for data gathering
¨
used tools for knowledge map
evaluation
¨
objectives
¨
knowledge mapping approach
¨
create static or dynamic knowledge
map
¨
support tacit or explicit
After indicating the most important criteria, a new comparison framework
with determined features are constituted. These features are upheld in average
by experts.
Table1: Questionnaires’
Results
4. A Framework For Comparison
The comparison of knowledge mapping techniques is a very difficult process
and various viewpoints about that. It is not necessary that analyzers’
viewpoints adopt with users’ viewpoints. Hence, it is so important to
codify another set of viewpoints which satisfies all people and experts.
As discussed in section 3, there would be six main elements in this
framework. This framework is not expected to be completely comprehensive. In
future, it may encounter with a number of added features. However, our belief
is that we present a set of features which proof that it is an evidence
guideline as a basis to techniques comparison during examining a techniques or
using of some combination of them. These features are not exclusive and may be
there is some intercommunication between them.
In Table 2, you can see the techniques’ comparison. The table’s
elements are extracted from numerous researches (Lutters,
2002; Shields, 2004; Jennings, 2005; Liang,
2007; Barroso; NAVSEA, 2001; Walton, 2007; Iske, 2005; Liebowitz, 2005; MAQ,
2004; USAID, 2003; Mccall, 2006; Wiig,
1996; Hellström, 2003; Lin, 2001) and upheld
its validation by experts.
5. Discussion
A structured approach to select a proper knowledge mapping technique has
been proposed in this paper. This framework encourages the adoption of these
techniques if they have a strong positive relationship with organization
objectives and have no major adverse effects.
The framework identifies the key technique which improves knowledge mapping
process. This is based on experts’ ideas that were determined the most
suitable features for comparison framework. Thus, the framework indicates which
knowledge mapping techniques will have the greatest effect on the desired
knowledge map in order to use in knowledge management projects.
Evidence, from experts, indicated that a failure to mapping knowledge in the
appropriate sequence can lead to disappointment and the effective knowledge map
is dependent on the quality of the selection of knowledge mapping technique.
The implication of this finding is that the necessary technique must be
employed for making effective knowledge map. Failure to do so will lead to
disappointing results. The increasing search for knowledge mapping techniques
reinforces the need to emphasis that the reported success from the use of knowledge
mapping technique cannot be emulated unless the condition which make a
technique successful are also emulated. There is a need to assess the
infrastructure of techniques which is required in order to recreate a similar
scenario.
In order to review the success of a selected technique in achieving
effective knowledge map, measurement should take place to show a clear link
between the approach that has been taken and the results that have been gained.
Unless efficiency is measured after a technique which is selected by using this
framework has been employed, it cannot be determined whether this framework has
had a positive or negative effect on knowledge map efficiency. Without
measurement, any improvements are anecdotal. By demonstrating that the new way
of selecting are having a positive effect, it will be easier to increase the
pace of efficiency improvement are clearly being demonstrated. The greatest
strength of the framework is in the provision of information to encourage
knowledge managers to focus on the objectives to be achieved, link knowledge
mapping techniques to objectives, organization capability for employing some
tools which are not used before and the type of organization that knowledge
management project is implemented in (hierarchy, project based or process
based).
6. Conclusion
A key part of knowledge management is performing knowledge map to determine
knowledge flows within an organization and to provide insights for improving
business and organizational processes.
In this paper, through field studying and by using experts’ opinions,
six main features were extracted which can help to select an appropriate
knowledge mapping technique.
A framework were created by those six factors which are used tools for data
gathering, used tools for knowledge map evaluation, Objectives, knowledge
mapping approach, create static or dynamic map and
support tacit or explicit knowledge.
Above comparison is represented with attention to key features of each
mapping knowledge techniques. These features play an important role in
successful knowledge mapping. The represented framework can help knowledge
managers to select their suitable techniques with attention to
technique’s features and apply it in organization and be sure of mapping
knowledge successfully. They can also adopt knowledge mapping techniques to
support and conceptualize knowledge sharing in their organizations and to help
individuals find experts who are looking for.
Limitations of the study include: The findings are based on few researches
in this article and further research with similar partnerships needs to be
undertaken to establish points of comparison. There is no case study which
explain how to select a knowledge mapping technique or even how mapping
knowledge.
More case studies and a fundamental study of the types of knowledge and
organizations that could benefit from this approach would help people to make
better decisions when considering the implementation of this selection
framework.
7. References
Andrea, H. (2006), Building a
Knowledge Map: An Analysis of Five Years of Topics Presented at a KM Community
of Practice, Submitted to OLKC Conference at the University of Warwick
Anon. (2003), Business process
mapping, available at: www.knowledge-edge.co.uk/pages/article02.htm.
Avison, D., Guy, F. (2006), Information Systems
Development Methodologies, Techniques & Tools, 4th Edition, McGraw Hill
Barroso, J., Overview of KM Methods, A presentation
in R&D Group on KM Uses NSTA
Belsis, P. (2005), Information systems security
from a knowledge management perspective, Information Management & Computer
Security Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 189-202
Choo, C. W. (1998), The
knowing organization: how organizations use information to construct meaning,
create knowledge, and make decisions. New York:
Oxford University Press
Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L. and Borgatti, S.P.
(2001), ‘‘Knowing what we know: supporting knowledge creation and
sharing in social networks’’, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 30 No.
2, pp. 100-20.
Cross, R. (2002), A bird’s-eye view: Using social network analysis to
improve knowledge creation and sharing, IBM Corporation
Driessen, S. (2007) A framework for evaluating
knowledge-mapping tools, Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 109-117.
Eppler, M.J. (2001), ‘‘Making
knowledge visible through intranet knowledge maps: concepts, elements,
cases’’, Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Vol. 4, p. 4030.
Fu-ren,
L. (2001), The Sociotechnical Perspective of Building
Teachers’ Professional Community: SCTNet,
Department of Information Management
Ginger shields’ knowledge
mapping Script for LI-807 (2004), KM-SLIM Conference, Accessed November 2008:
http://www.inspiration.com
Gómez, A., Moreno,
A., Pazos, J. and Sierra-Alonso, A. (2000),
“Knowledge maps: An essential technique for conceptualization,”
Data & Knowledge Engineering, 33, 169-190
Hellström, T. (2003), Mapping Knowledge and
Intellectual Capital in Academic Environments: A Focus Group Study, Department
of Management, Politics and Philosophy
Huijsen, W., Driessen,
S.J. and Jacobs, J.W.M. (2004), ‘‘Explicit conceptualizations for
knowledge mapping’’, Vol. 3, pp. 231-6, Sixth International
Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2004), Porto, April.
Iske, P. (2005), Connected brains: Question and
answer systems for knowledge sharing: concepts, implementation and return on
investment, Journal of Knowledge Management
Jennings, W. (2005), Simple Tools to Help Build a Knowledge Map, DRAFT, Version 1.1
Lecocq, R. (2004), Knowledge mapping: A conceptual
model, Defence R&D Canada – Valcartier Technical Report DRDC Valcartier
Liang, J. (2007), The Research And
Application Of Process Knowledge Map’ Constructing Method, Journal of the
Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 30-41
Liebowitz, J. (2005), Linking social network analysis
with the analytic hierarchy process for knowledge mapping in organizations,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 NO. 1, pp. 76-86, Q Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270
Lutters, W., Ackerman, M., Boster,
J. and McDonald, D. (2002), “Mapping Knowledge Networks in Organizations:
Creating a Knowledge Mapping Instrument”. Proceeding of the Americas
Conference on Information Systems
Maq, P. (2004), Managing Knowledge to Improve
Reproductive Health Programs, No. 5
Martensson, M. (2000), "A
critical review of knowledge management as a management tool." Journal of Knowledge Management, 4,
204-216.
McCall, R. (2006), Creating a knowledge cycle: applying basic knowledge
management and communities of practice theory to victim services
Nonaka, I.,
Takeuchi, H. (1995), The knowledge creating company:
how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New
York: Oxford
University Press
Pollock, N. (2002), Knowledge
Management and Information Technology (Know-IT Encyclopedia), Defense Acquisition
University Press, Fort Belvoir, Virginia,
First Edition
Putz, P. (2004), Technical Reviews: Torn Between
Knowledge Sharing and Project Assessment, Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science NASA Ames Research Center,
USA
Speel, P.H., Shadbolt,
N., de Vries, W. Van Dam, P.H., and O’Hara, K.
(1999), "Knowledge mapping for industrial purposes", Alberta, Canada,
No.October,
Suyeon, K. (2003), Building the knowledge map: an
industrial case study, journal of knowledge management, VOL. 7 NO. 2
USAID (The United States Agency for
International Development) (2003), Knowledge Mapping 101: Knowledge for
Development Seminar, 22nd September.
Vail, E.F. (1999),
‘‘Mapping organisational
knowledge’’, Knowledge Management Review, Vol. 8, May/June, pp.
10-15.
Vestal, W. (2005), knowledge
mapping: The Essentials for Success. Huston: APQC Publications.
Walton, J.S. (2007), Structural
issues and knowledge management in transnational education partnerships,
Journal of European Industrial Training
Wexler, M.N. (2001), ‘‘The who, what and why of knowledge
mapping’’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp.
249-63.
Wiig, K. (1996), Supporting knowledge
management: a selection of methods and techniques, Knowledge Research Institute
Woo J. H., M. J. Clayton, R. E.
Johnson, B. E. Flores and C. Ellis (2004), “Dynamic knowledge map:
reusing experts’ tacit knowledge in AEC industry,” Automation in
Construction, 13, 203-207.
Zbigniew, M. (2005), Basics of Information and
Knowledge Management, newsletter of knowledge management for mountain
development,No.47
About the Authors:
Dr. Mostafa Jafari is an Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering
Department in Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran,
with BE in Mechanical and ME in Productivity and PhD in Industrial Engineering
from IIT, Delhi. Working in area of strategic planning, BPR, knowledge
management, with more that 20 research paper and five books in area of
Industrial Engineering. He can be contacted at: mostafajafari2006@yahoo.com
Dr. Peyman Akhavan received
his M.S.c and PhD degree in Industrial Engineering
from Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
His research interests are in Business Process Reengineering, Knowledge
Management, Information Technology, and Strategic Planning. He has published 1
book and has more than 30 research papers in different conferences and
journals. E-mail: akhavan@iust.ac.ir
Atieh Bourouni received
her BE in Industrial Engineering from Iran University of Science and
Technology, Tehran
in 2007, and currently is MSc student in the same
university. Her research interests are in Knowledge Management, Agent-based
simulation, Systems Modeling, and Human Resource Management. She has published
more than 6 papers in different conferences and journals. E-mail: bourouni@ind.iust.ac.ir
Roozbeh Hesam Amiri received his BE in Industrial Engineering from Iran
University of Science and Technology, Tehran
in 2007, and currently is MSc student in the same
university. His research interests are in Knowledge Management, Information
Technology, Artificial Intelligence, Systems Modeling, and Human Resource
Management. He has published more than 10 papers in different conferences and
journals. E-mail: amiri_r@ind.iust.ac.ir
