Map Your Knowledge Strategy
by Xenia Stanford
Xenia Stanford is president of Stanford Solutions Inc. and Editor-in-Chief, KnowMap: the Knowledge Management, Auditing and Mapping Magazine. She may be reached at president@knowmap.com
Knowledge mapping quite simply is any visualization of knowledge beyond textual for the purpose of eliciting, codifying, sharing, using and expanding knowledge.
Organizations today are focused on the intellectual analysis
of knowledge management and knowledge strategy. Often this cerebral view causes them to overlook a valuable tool for sharing, creating, analyzing and building upon knowledge, called knowledge mapping.
The history and uses of knowledge mapping show the length of time and wide variety of applications. From the past we can learn valuable lessons for mapping knowledge in organizations, including the mapping of the knowledge management strategy.
History of Knowledge Mapping
Knowledge mapping quite simply is any visualization of knowledge beyond textual for the purpose of eliciting, codifying, sharing, using and expanding knowledge. Thus it began as geographical maps drawn by ancient cartographers who depicted what they knew, how it was laid out and where it was located. Actually it could have originated long before that as ancient pictographs found in caves believed to date around 30,000 B.C. show various animals and might have been a way of recording the strategy of the hunt to share with others or to record for later use.
One of the oldest maps was found engraved on a silver vase dating from 3,000 B.C. See Figure 1: Map from Vase Found in Maikop Tomb. This depicted a body of water, a couple of trees and a semi-circular path leading to and from this location. In the water, between the trees and
Figure 1:
Map from Vase Found in Maikop Tomb
along the path different animals can be seen with the most plentiful hunting ground shown as a junction toward the bottom of the map. This is clearly a means of codifying knowledge to assist the hunter and others in his clan in tracing the steps back to the best booty.
The wisest of all cartographers though were those in the ancient regime who drew not only what they knew but also delineated where the borders and gaps in their knowledge existed. Perhaps it was a challenge to themselves or others to fill those gaps. Some ancient cartographers drew the known areas and at the edges indicated the unknown by drawing dragons. This "here be dragons" saying inferred both the danger and the challenge in finding what lay beyond. Modern cartographers tend to draw only what they know. We would be wise to heed the lessons of the ancients and draw not only what we know but show where be the dragons we must find and slay.
Maps were long used in military battles as well to show the routes and possible dangers of the way to the enemies' strongholds. Military maps were more than geographical maps as they were used to plan and strategize how to overcome the enemy and win the war. Later the armies also used these after battle as means of analyzing and deriving lessons learned.
The one often called the most perfect example of military mapping for debriefing purposes was that of M. Charles Minard (1781-1870), a retired civil engineer. His map showed the path of the 1812 march of 422,000 of Napoleon's troops leaving Paris for Moscow and the retreat of the decimated ranks. On this map Minard shows the temperatures and other challenges affecting the dwindling size.
This visualization captured the lessons learned in one image rather than volumes of text. The original map and modern revisions for clarity can be found at Michael Friendly's website (http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/re-minard.html). Sunny McClendon's version appears to be one of the closest to the original while showing the more minute aspects more clearly. See Figure 2: Minard's Map of Napoleon's Invasion of Russia.
The military continued the use of maps for pre-battle strategy and post-battle debriefings. However, it wasn't until the twentieth century that educators and sociologists began to use knowledge mapping as a way of facilitating learning and understanding social groupings. Only very recently have some businesses begun to perceive this as a valuable tool for eliciting tacit knowledge and making it explicit. Now others are utilizing knowledge mapping to track knowledge flow, map strategy and make wiser decisions.
What is Knowledge Mapping?
As stated above at its simplest it is geographical mapping. More specifically it is any visualization of knowledge beyond textual for the purpose of eliciting, codifying, sharing, using and expanding knowledge.
The confusion of exactly what knowledge mapping is can be linked to the naming of website indexes as site maps. This has caused a degradation of the term "map". As indicated by Smelcer and Carmel a map as opposed to an index shows spatial relationships such as proximity, adjacency and containment. See Figure 3: Spatial Relationships. It includes more than text, such as symbols, legends and other visual objects. Thus to be a knowledge map the item must use spatial relationships to elicit, share and codify knowledge.
Figure 3:
Spatial Relationships
Lest this be confused with any visual art form, the knowledge map must show a progression of ideas with relationships beyond just spatial. Knowledge maps include conceptual relationships, such as chronological, hierarchical, associative, causal, logical and evaluative.
Today many consider knowledge mapping to be nothing more than concept or mind mapping originally used to facilitate learning. These are indeed knowledge maps because they show both spatial and conceptual relationships. However, the field covers much more than concept maps. For example, it includes logic maps, decision trees, system's thinking diagramming and knowledge flow charts. These are all types of knowledge mapping but there are also many other examples.
Not only does the knowledge map capture existing knowledge. Often the knowledge is created and built as the map evolves and this knowledge is transferred through the sharing of the map with others. This is a perfect tool then to map an organization's strategy, particularly a knowledge management strategy.
Yet how does one do so?
Strategy Maps
Both the book The WarRoom Guide to Competitive Intelligence by Steven M. Shaker and Mark P. Gembicki and the article "Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It" by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton show various means of mapping strategy for planning and implementing purposes.
Yet these were found to be too complex and time-consuming for many, especially those just embarking on strategic mapping. Thus a template based on the knowledge vee is a means of organizing those aspects that must be considered in any knowledge management strategy. The original knowledge vee, also known as the heuristic vee, was originated by D. B. Gowin and further explored by Joseph Novak. The model for a specialized knowledge management strategy vee is based on the basic template devised by Gowin.
Basic Vee Map
The vee map as originated by Gowin is a way of exploring the tension between theory and method and using this to gain and retain knowledge. Further expansions and adaptations included using it to devise solutions and make informed decisions.
Rudd includes as the values of the vee:
· Shows how new knowledge interacts with what we already know
· Pinpoints the research question: the intervention into the flow of everyday activity: the point where the vee "digs in" and "levers out" a new "space"
The vee is a form of knowledge map because teams or individuals who wish to either learn or create knowledge can do so by using the format to map and feed the vee. It uses both spatial and conceptual relationships to examine knowledge on one hand as theory and on the other as evidenced through heuristics or experience.
The vee map follows the shape its name suggests by two axes extending down from the top to form a crux where they join at the bottom. The theory or concepts follow one axis and the methods or how-to follow the other. The problem statements or questions for examination are fed or funnelled down the centre between the two axes and eventually the assessment against each will bring the examiners to their conclusions or solutions.
An example of a basic vee template, modified from Passmore and other sources, is shown in Figure 4: Basic Vee. The first axis in this generic vee covers the concepts or thinking by looking at world-view, philosophy, theory, and concepts as these are evidenced in events and/or objects. The other side representing methodology and action allows the examiner to test the events and objects up from data and information through transformations, knowledge and value claims. Then using commentary and discussion where a team is involved, suggestions are brought forward, analysed and tested to derive workable solutions.
Figure 4:
Basic Vee
Knowledge Management Strategy Vee
The knowledge management strategy vee was constructed to assist businesses in visualizing those aspects that must be considered when developing a strategy.
Figure 5: Knowledge Management Strategy Vee aids in examining where the organization is now and how it can be transformed and empowered through a new or improved strategy.
Instead of the original theory as the left axis and action on the right axis, the KMS vee uses current state (as-is) on the left and ideal state (to-be) on the right. On this vee map what current practices are in place are examined down the left axis. As the bottom is reached conclusions are drawn on what is working effectively and what is not (gap analysis). Then what the ideal practices (that is, the new strategy) should be is filled in up the right axis.
How the Vee Works
The purpose of the vee is to examine on the left what others including the unit desiring the strategy are currently doing (both existing best and past unsuccessful practices) and to use the lessons learned from that to determine better or more ideal practices for the knowledge management strategy.
The vee starts at the top left and works down toward the crux after examining the current state for each of the elements funnelled down the opening of the vee. At the bottom or crux conclusions regarding what current practices are worth retaining are made. Also at this point gaps (those practices not working effectively) should be determined and measured. After the gap analysis the vee is climbed up the right axis. As this is done, the funnelled elements are again examined to determine what should be changed to develop a better knowledge management strategy.
Funnelled Elements
The funnelled elements consist of four areas and five aspects within each area. All areas and aspects are equally important and the balance in the examination must be
Figure 5:
Knowledge Management Strategy Vee
maintained. However, to shorten time these can be considered at a high level or, where time is not the most important driving force, detailed levels.
Thus each of these areas and aspects must be analyzed and measured. The formula may be written as follows:
(C.I.) x (PCPRT)
Four C.I.
The funnel of the KMS Vee shows the research questions as the 4 C.I. areas to be examined for improvement. The 4 C.I. stands for the four main aspects of competitive intelligence. However, this author believes competitive intelligence is much broader than intelligence about competitors. Rather it is all the intelligence or knowledge that keeps an organization competitive and, therefore, successful.
The four areas of competitive intelligence are as follows:
1. Customers
These include those who buy and those who don't. Valuable knowledge can be gleaned from both. Customer relationship management (CRM) is currently known to be a vital component of any knowledge management strategy.
2. Collaborators
This area covers strategic alliances, service providers, joint ventures, regulatory bodies and anyone with whom an organization must collaborate and cooperate in the course of conducting business.
2. Competitors
Those who may or may not compete directly (for example provide different products or services) but who target the same market may be considered competitors. The value in examining them is not just to best them but also to dig a different niche or form trans-competitive relationships or strategic alliances.
3. Corporation
This stands for the internal organizationfrom corpus for body, so can include individuals, non-profit, government and industry or any body considering a knowledge management strategy.
All these areas must be examined to find where the organization wishing to develop or improve their strategy is now (as-is or current state) and where it is desirable to be (ideal state) in comparison to other organizations in the macrocosm.
Questions such as these below need to be asked for each category:
· Who are they?
· Who should they be?
· What are their needs and drivers?
· What do they know that we need to know?
· What do they know that could hurt us?
· What do they not know that would help us be more competitive, for example by outperforming or finding a niche?
· What do they do that we could do better?
· What do they do that we shouldn't do because they can do it better?
· Should we expand them or decrease them or change our relationships with them?
· How do we capture knowledge from them now?
· How can we improve our knowledge capturing techniques
These and similar questions are relevant in the examination of the current situation and what should become the ideal state. Above there are parallel questions to cover what it is now and how it could be improved (should be).
PCPRT
In each of the four above areas of competitive intelligence are five aspects by which they can and should be examined. The acronym is pronounced pee-cee-pert. It stands for the following aspects:
· P = people or personnel (who does the work)
· C = culture, communication, corporate climate, society (where, when and why the work gets done)
· P = processes (how the work gets done)
· R = resources (what can help work get done better intellectually)
· T = tools, including technology (what can help work get done betterphysically or mechanically)
View from the Top
Another way of looking at the vee to see the relationship of areas and aspects is from the top of the funnel looking down. See Figure 6: Vee Funnel Top View.
Figure 6:
Vee Funnel Top View
The PCPRT could be repeated in each section. However, it is placed along the center line to show it applies to each. Each of the PCPRT should be measured against what value is perceived compared to what value is required, what knowledge is achieved versus what is needed, what are the best practices compared to what has backfired.
Also each part of the PCPRT affects every other part. Some measuring systems currently employed focus on one or two but not all. Yet each is part of the whole. Thus these should be examined individually and measured according to how they interrelate to the whole.
Here are some ideas of what to look for in the examination and measurement:
People
For example, usually people's abilities (often referred to as skills or competencies), knowledge and behaviors, even at times attitudes, are examined to find what these are compared to some devised standard. This is all well and good but without measuring culture and how it impacts the people, it will not be a true rating of skills and knowledge.
Culture
Some cultures foster knowledge sharing and some create a hostile environment where sharing is feared lest the knowledge is used to someone else's betterment at the knowing individual's expense. Also if people are judged on the behaviors (exhibited skills and knowledge) alone, no account is made for how the corporate climate may be affecting the empirical evidence of their true abilities.
Processes
Processes too are affected by people and affect people. If there is too much rigidity and too many rules for how things get done, people's knowledge and its application to devising better ways to do things will never be fully exploited.
Standards are good and training is also beneficial. However, educating people in the desired outcomes and then giving them input into developing better ways of doing things is more valuable.
Resources
Resources are also often miss-measured. Usually these are measured as tangible assets. For example, the number of books and databases are tallied up with a certain commercial value. Yet the true measure is what difference they make to the knowledge and thus to the output.
Unused resources are wasted and in turn waste other resources. Often the performance measures of libraries and other information groups are how many and how much resources they have and turn over to the users.
Instead the true measure is what difference they make to the competitive intelligence of the company. Rather than keeping statistics, these information centers would do well to measure instead what value the use of these resources has made to the corporate intelligence and bottom-line.
Tools
Finally technology is often considered to be the sum total of tools and a panacea to all KM problems. Further it is often regarded as the one true knowledge facilitation tool.
However, there are other tools people need to get the job done. It could be other mechanical equipment, filing systems, software outside the KM system. How do these tools aid or impair knowledge capture, retention, creation and use?
Furthermore, without proper use, tools become also wasted resources. This includes technologies. Rather than assisting in gaining a knowledge advantage, it may detract from it.
Examples of the pitfalls of placing technology alone or technology at the forefront of the PCPRT elements can be seen in some companies touted as early best knowledge practice models. Some of these companies measured their success according to what technological solution was being used. This included how many times a person logged in and how much they supposedly input. The fallacy in this is that true measures are not in the input but in the output.
What value did these tools provide in releasing not simply capturing knowledge? Not how often but how well was it used to increase knowledge and what difference did this knowledge make to the bottom line?
The Bottom Line
The bottom line is the true measure of intellectual worth and value. If people, culture, processes, resources and tools are not improving the bottom line, then these are not assets of any kind. They can instead be deficits. Thus the KM strategy must be aligned with and feed the bottom line.
In some non-profit organizations, wealth might not be counted in terms of money or the financial bottom line of a balance sheet. It may be some other corporate weal, like the well being of those whom it serves. Whatever the organization's critical objectives are form the bottom-line measures that must be used.
Left Axis: Current State
Each of the above four areas times the five aspects should be examined starting at the upper left hand section of the vee and continuing down the side to the crux.
This covers the current state of the organization developing the strategy. The macrocosm covers the entire state-of-the-art and may be any structure larger than the individual organization itself.
The examination should include structures, mission statements, expressed values and cover successes as well as failures. Next both the positive and negative values perceived in the macrocosmic organizations by their customers, collaborators, competitors and corporations must be examined. Following that the knowledge achieved by these organizations and how they accomplished it should be studied both for what worked and what did not.
Out of this some best practices and some practices either to be avoided or improved upon should arise and be captured by the strategic development team. Also anything mandated by the parent organization and any other levels that have control over the unit must also be documented and verified.
Thus the team comes to the final category on the left axis, which is what is to be retained. This list will include the mandatory and the best practises.
How You Plan to Get There
When the crux is reached, it means the team has measured the macrocosms and now must measure their unit against these. Once this is done the team has arrived at a gap analysisthose things that either must or should be changed to ensure a better strategy. They are now ready to begin designing a better state.
Right Axis: Ideal State
The team starts the right axis at the bottom by the crux and works upward. The first item on the list is what should be changed (to align with mandatory, consider best and improve worst practises) to arrive at a list of better practices for themselves.
Then the team must consider what new knowledge is required within the organizational unit looking for a better strategy. Assessing what customer, collaborator, competitor and corporation knowledge is needed by the organization that is not already available is important.
Next the value the organization must deliver should be assessed and improvements made according to what it was lacking as perceived by others across the vee. Finally the ideal state of the microcosm is designed and how that can be achieved is determined. The next step is to fill the gaps - that is, to implement the solutions.
Re-Measure, Re-Audit
Lastly in some period in the future, a re-audit or new measurement needs to be taken against what the ideal was supposed to be and how what was accomplished measures up. With this old gaps may still be seen because they were not properly filled. Also new gaps may have been created because conditions in the macrocosm have changed rapidly since the unit's strategy was originally designed or last updated.
The vee structure may be used at a high level or more in-depth approach. It depends on whether a quick strategy temperature check is needed or the organization wishes to move to the next evolution of the strategy. If this is the case, a more intensive approach, such as used when developing the initial strategy, may be needed.
Thus, this is a template to have on hand, not just to design the initial knowledge management strategy, but also to keep it on track.
Works Cited:
Friendly, Michael. Re-Visions of Minard. Undated. Accessed March 19, 2001 at http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/re-minard.html
Gowin, D.B. Educating. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1981.
Gregorovich, Andrew. Ancient Inventions of Ukraine Date last modified: Thursday February 3rd 2000. http://209.82.14.226/history/inventions/figure03.gif
Kaplan, Robert S. and David P. Norton. "Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then Map It". Harvard Business Review. Reprint R00509. See review at http://www.knowmap.com/book_kapl.htm
McClendon, Sunny. Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. Undated. Accessed March 19, 2001 at http://eunuch.ddg.com/LIS/InfoDesignF96/Sunny/napoleon/Napoleon.html
Novak, Joseph Donald. Learning, Creating, And Using Knowledge: Concept Maps As Facilitative Tools In Schools And Corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1998. See review at http://www.knowmap.com/book_novak.htm
Passmore, Gregory D. "Using Vee diagrams to facilitate meaningful learning and misconception remediation in radiologic technologies laboratory education". AERS. See www.aers.org/v4n1passmore.html (1995). Dated 24 April 1999.
Rudd, David. The Vee Heuristic. Dated October 2000. www.ase.bolton.ac.uk/teaching/ma/veehandout.htm http://www.ase.bolton.ac.uk/teaching/ma/veehandout.htm
Shaker, Steven M. and Mark P. Gembicki. The WarRoom Guide to Competitive Intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1998. See review at http://www.knowmap.com/book_shaker.htm
Smelcer, John B. and Carmel, Erran. "The Effectiveness of Different Representations for Managerial Problem Solving: Comparing Tables and Maps", Decision Sciences, v.28, n.2, Spring 1997. 
RSS
Feedback form
