Knowledge conversations

“Knowledge conversations” are conversations with people about their knowledge. The conversations usually have one or more of three main motives:

1. Knowledge elicitation and gathering – it’s far less challenging for people to tell you than be asked to go and write for you what they know. So there’s less of a barrier, less of a wait, and you get more, more quickly and more easily. This is a content focus that usually results in obtaining information that can be passed on to others.
2. Domain shaping – sometimes it’s less about the content of the subject matter than it is about understanding its parameters, what it consists of. Is it rich in concepts, facts, system models, rules, processes? What kinds of roles and actors are there? What can it do? Does it consist of well-established, recorded bodies of knowledge? This is a structure focus that gives us an understanding of the breadth, depth, nature and condition of the knowledge.
3. Action scoping. This is about understanding what we could do with, about and for this knowledge. Can we help exploit it? Does it need some intervention or support? Is there a specific application need or a general one? This is an action focus that leads to plans, programmes, projects, tasks, teams, objectives and so on.

The people are usually of two or three kinds:

4. Subject matter experts (SMEs). Asked the right questions they are usually very clear on the answers [1], and have an informed, long-term strategic view of what they’d like to see happen [3].
5. Team leaders. They’re not always deep in the subject matter but may have had to have arrived at some appreciation of what the knowledge looks like from the outside [2], and have their own view of what should happen [3], likley more short-term than SMEs.
6. Anyone who “does the job”. Some of these are, of course, SMEs or team leaders as well. But anyone who actually “does the job”, “in the place” is likely to have a very detailed and personal perspective.

It’s usually best done one-to-one and kept short. However, depending on the need and the appetite of participants it can be flexed to larger groups and longer sessions.

In my earlier career, in the age of ‘Expert Systems’ we did long series of extended expert knowledge elicitation (KE) interviews, using various contrived techniques. I personally still think this could be highly valuable to really get a good fix on a body of knowledge. However, it’s out of fashion. In business analysis (BA) we have similar techniques and approaches although they’re not really aiming to elicit the knowledge [1 or 2], but more to understand something about the situation [3]. If anything, this is KE or BA lite.

What would I ask? Well “Tell me about …” is a good opener, “What should everyone / a beginner understand about x?” is another. You might ask:

What do we know about x? What evidence and experience do we have? What is codified? How do you learn about x?

What are the main controversies? Who are the main players? What are the applications of x?

Questions like this inevitably lead into areas [1] and [2], and area [3], what needs to happen next, usually needs little prompting.

As KMers, we should keep on finding time, making opportunities, for knowledge conversations … for our own information, to gather content, gain insight and both structure and plan for KM developments. And also as catalysts – – it would be rare that someone, questioned about and allowed to speak about their knowledge in these ways, didn’t continue to think about it, and likely seek you out for the next steps.