Leo,
I'm certainly not an expert, but I'll try to respond to your questions the
best that I can.
Leo Minnigh wrote:
> The only comments/questions I have are:
>
> 1. The unravelling of a problem in Goal, Fact, Symptom, Cause is great,
> and the probable answers as Fix looks all nice.
the structure of the knowledge object is designed to make it more
"findable" and "readable" by a subscriber (user).
> 2. However, in one way or another, the layout fits not my easthetic
> feelings. I hope that my honesty does not flame Andrew Wong, because I had
> always mixed feelings with his contributions. For me, these read not easy
> and are not inviting. I am not sure if I am the only one who have this
> trouble.
I find knowledge objects challenging to write...but not to read. I agree
with your feeling that these knowledge objects aren't aesthetic , but the
purpose is less aesthetic than practical in making the knowledge objects
easily found and quickly useful.
> 3. Nearly each problem is unique (especially if the context is taken into
> account. Some of the answers retrieved from this knowledgebase might be
> of good value. But do they generate learning? Do they generate
> stimulate new knowledge in the head of the questioneer?
Well, nearly each problem seems unique to the person with the problem.
Actually, a significant proportion of problems may be very similar within
a given context. When I describe a "problem" I have...or, perhaps a
"need" to learn some specific type of knowledge (this would be an example
of a goal, for instance), the knowledgebase identifies objects based on
their relevancy to my problem or goal statements.
Sometimes I won't find the exact information or solution I'm searching
for...but I may find an approach (this is our actual experience) which
moves me into asking more focused questions and sometimes into solving my
own problem (learning). Remember, though, that "learning" is a added
value process that the user brings develops in relationship with the
knowledge object. Sometimes, users are less interested in learning than
in just having a solution now for a problem that they are wrestling with
now.
> 4. Fits such a knowledgebase in the concepts of a learning organization,
> where dialogue should be important?
Knowledgebases are not a substitute for dialog, interpersonal
relationships or any of the five disciplines. Knowledgebases are means to
leverage knowledge (to share individual knowledge collectively). They are
used by organizations that are learning to evolve (and survive) in a
changing, complex business world.
> 5. Are the 'owners'(persons) of the information in the knowledgebase also
> known in the database?
Yes. You might call these people "authors" of knowledge objects. The
knowledge objects have each author's name, along with a hypertext link to
an e-mail address (so you can ask for clarification or more information).
> Maybe all these questions and remarks have to do with a more general
> question:
> Is the knowledgebase of the Outsights-site problem-oriented or
> knowledge-oriented?
The knowledgebase at OutSights is oriented to leveraging knowledge that
supports the diverse needs of its' subscribers...so for people with a
problem, it's problem-oriented. For people seeking knowledge, it's
knowledge-oriented. It's also still a relatively small knowledgebase with
only a few thousand knowledge objects in it. As it grows, evolves and
becomes more tuned (this is a maturing process) it will satisfy more users
needs even more than it does now.
> If I have a question/problem, I like to come in contact with a person who
> could share his/her knowledge with me on that particular subject. So My
> needs (goals) are more person/knowledge-oriented. So my needs are a
> database where I could trace such person. And if someone asks me a
> question which I don't know, I like to point the questioneer to a person,
> who knows more than me. This is actually the way Doc (pointing me to the
> Outsight-site) and Rick (pointing to Andrew Wong) acted in helping me.
>
> So my original proposal (LO20383) was a database which was
> person-oriented. And the person's knowledge was traceable by a retrievable
> database of multi-information sentences (by use of various typographics).
> In my mind this is the other way round: start with the available
> knowledge, so the knowledge-owners should open themselves. Possible future
> questions could be than answered.
As I pointed out, subscribers use the knowledge objects in ways that best
meet their needs. Sometimes it answers their need directly. Other times,
it provides an approach which they can use to direct their own learning or
resolution. Again, other times the subscriber e-mails the author and
says, "hey, this was no help at all..." or "I need more information or
clarification" and a "dialog" is generated between the author and the
subscriber.
I think that learning to work in this environment takes time and
effort...but for the business subscriber, knowledge-leveraging should be a
cost-effective, capacity-generating tool that can become an indispensable
component of their business practice. Capturing what people know and
making it accessible to others becomes increasingly important as the
amount of knowledge we need to have available (to support products and
services) continues to expand exponentially.
I hope this helps...and that Gene or Andrew can fix any of my
mistatements!
regards,
Doc
-- "Mindfulness is the practice of aiming your attention, moment to moment, in the direction of your purpose. It is called mindfulness because you have to keep your purpose in mind as you watch your attention. Then whenever you notice that your aim has drifted off, you calmly realign it." -Frank AndrewsThresholds <http://www.thresholds.com> Meeting Masters <http://www.thresholds.com/masters.html> Richard Charles Holloway - P.O. Box 641, Long Beach, WA 98631 Voice 360.642.8487 ICQ# 10849650
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>