Knowledge process analysis: Framework and experience

Abstract

We present a step-by-step approach for constructing a framework for knowledge process analysis (KPA). We intend to apply this framework to the analysis of own research projects in an exploratory way and elaborate it through the accumulation of case studies. This study is based on a methodology consisting of knowledge process modeling, primitives synthesis, and reflective verification. We describe details of the methodology and present the results of case studies: a novel methodology, a practical work guide, and a tool for KPA; insights for improving future research projects and education; and the integration of existing knowledge creation theories.

Keywords

Knowledge process analysis / knowledge process modeling / primitives synthesis / reflective verification

References

[1] Busch P.A., Richards D., Dampney C.N.G.. Visual mapping of articulable tacit knowledge. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, Sydney, 2001, 9: 37-47.

[2] Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization. SAGE Publications

[3] Despres C., Chauvel D.. Despres C., Chauval D.. A thematic analysis of the thinking in knowledge management. Knowledge Horizons. The Present and the Promise of Knowledge Management, 2000, Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann 55-86.

[4] Finke R., Ward T., Smith S.. Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications, 1992, Cambridge: MIT Press

[5] Flanagan J.C.. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 1954, 51(4): 327-359.

[6] Ichikawa K.. The Science of Creativity, 1970, Tokyo: Japan Braodcast Publishing

[7] Kawakita J.. The KJ Method — A Scientific Approach to Problem Solving, 1975, Tokyo: Kawakita Research Institute

[8] Li M., Gao F.. Why Nonaka highlights tacit knowledge: a critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2003, 7(4): 6-14.

[9] Meyer, B. & Spiekermann, S. (2006). SkillMap: dynamic visualization of shared organizational context. In: Lehner, F., Noesekabel, H., Kleinshchmidt (eds.), Proceedings of Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik 2006 (WI’06), pp. 528–540. Universität Passau

[10] Meyer B., Sugiyama K.. The concept of knowledge in KM: a dimensional model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2007, 11(1): 17-36.

[11] Nonaka I., Takeuchi H.. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, 1995, New York: Oxford Univ. Press

[12] Nonaka I., Toyama R., Konno N.. The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2000, 1: 2-10.

[13] Polanyi, M. (1983). The Tacit Dimension. Gloucester

[14] Redmond, B. (2004). Reflection in Action. Ashgate publishing

[15] Roberts, R.M. (1989). Serendipity: Accidental Discoveries in Science. John Wiley & Sons

[16] Simonton D.K.. Creativity in Science: Change, Logic, Genius, and Zeitgeist, 2004, Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

[17] Sugiyama K.. Post-analysis of knowledge creation processes in small research projects. Int. J. Information Technology and Decision Making, 2007, 6(3): 541-557.

[18] Sugiyama K., Hong S., Maeda A.. Liotta G.. The puzzle layout problem. Proceedings of GD 2003 — LNCS 2912, 2004, Berlin: Springer 500-501.

[19] Sugiyama, K. & Misue, K. (1990). “Good” graphic interfaces for “good” idea organizers. In: Proceedings of Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT’ 90), 521–526, August 1990, Cambridge

[20] Sugiyama K., Nagata A., Shimojima A.. Knowledge Science, 2002, Tokyo: Kinokuniya

[21] Sugiyama, K. Osawa, R. & Hong, S. (2005). Puzzle generators and symmetric puzzle layout. In: Proceedings of Asia-Pacific Symposium on Information Visualization 2005 (APVIS2005), Sydney

[22] Zins C.. Redefining information science: from “information science” to “knowledge science”. Journal of Documentation, 2006, 62(4): 447-461.