Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly #discussion-starter #COVID-19 #definition #cynefin


Dennis Pearce
 

Hi all,

With a couple of weeks off I had time to write a couple of blog posts I would like to share:

- Stan's repost of his 2015 article on the DIKW Pyramid led me to some musings about whether information, knowledge, and wisdom are essentially emergent properties of the layers below them:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reflections-dikw-pyramid-dennis-pearce/

- I saw a research paper about how Danish scientists and politicians were in conflict over what actions to take regarding COVID-19, based on whether they felt they were operating in the Cynefin chaotic or complex domain.  This led me to thinking about our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-thinking-exponentially-dennis-pearce/

I'd be interested in reactions and critiques of either of these ideas.

Thanks,
Dennis


Patrick Lambe
 

I read your DIKW piece Dennis - it’s a nice piece, but even though you acknowledge bi-directionality, it still appears to favour the Data-To-Wisdom (or Knowledge) direction.

Phenomenologically speaking, Data is an artificial (human) construct - it is designed, for specific purposes, out of existing knowledge and information. Yes, once in existence it can give rise to new knowledge and information, but my issue with the pyramid (which was used as a political construct in the 1970s meant to give legitimacy and funding to data management people in corporations) is that Data is represented somehow as foundational to knowledge. It isn’t. We don’t naturalistically pick up “data” in the way that computing devices do, and our knowledge can exist largely independent of data (it’s a very big step to say that because a (small) portion of our knowledge can be decomposed into data, data underpins knowledge, and that is the outrageous implication of the DIKW pyramid).

Your model describes a functional or technical way of looking at data and how it can relate to information or knowledge (wisdom is a whole swamp of ambiguity on its own). It’s certainly better than the linear DIKW pyramid, but it is still not a full or naturalistic account, and it doesn’t completely explain how we interact with data.

Thanks for sharing!

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 3 Jan 2022, at 10:49 AM, Dennis Pearce <denpearce@...> wrote:

Hi all,

With a couple of weeks off I had time to write a couple of blog posts I would like to share:

- Stan's repost of his 2015 article on the DIKW Pyramid led me to some musings about whether information, knowledge, and wisdom are essentially emergent properties of the layers below them:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reflections-dikw-pyramid-dennis-pearce/

- I saw a research paper about how Danish scientists and politicians were in conflict over what actions to take regarding COVID-19, based on whether they felt they were operating in the Cynefin chaotic or complex domain.  This led me to thinking about our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/importance-thinking-exponentially-dennis-pearce/

I'd be interested in reactions and critiques of either of these ideas.

Thanks,
Dennis


Valdis Krebs
 

Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

Happy New Year to All,

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...

David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.

This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. The knowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.

We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.

However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.

This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.

In short:

  • The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist because of data
  • New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems
  • However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:

Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

Happy New Year to All,

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC


Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Stephen, I’m with you on the broad intent of your email, but I fear you have been “corrupted” by the data propagandists, in that you are conflating “pieces of information in a system” with “data”.

To my mind, “data” should be confined to “structured fragments of information within a coherent, bounded and designed information processing system and sitting in a database”. That is basically what it means in an organisational context.

To give it the broader sense is to lay ourselves open to the whole DIKW myth.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 4 Jan 2022, at 3:20 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...

David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.

This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. The knowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.

We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.

However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.

This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.

In short:

  • The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist because of data
  • New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems
  • However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:
Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

Happy New Year to All,

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC



Robert M. Taylor
 

WRT dikw I do believe one problem is the difficulty of language when we want to denote a meaning-carrying or signing/signalling unit. We have words like seme, semanteme and sememe but these are very difficult concepts. I don’t like dikw although I’ve admitted to having used it way back myself. And there may be contexts in which it has utility - but only within contexts, not as a general shorthand. Two of the different contexts used in this discussion would be the business context and the human cognitive psychology one. It certainly is helpful to interpret human intelligence in terms of cooperating layers of processing. For instance, the retina picks up light. Way beyond that we perceive regions and edges, segment the scene into objects and way beyond that we perhaps have an aesthetic appreciation of the painting. But it’s more like a blackboard architecture than a linear process, and we know that expectation plays a significant role. Likewise in the business context we know that data may be analysed to produce higher-level insights - but there would be many caveats to that before we could use dikw. Then there’s the issue of when knowledge is codified and I know some say it has now become information. Is it just a question of what role the seme (see?) is playing? And for whom, at which time? The big problem that matters here for km I think is that as a result many have missed the link to experience and practice altogether - leading people to think it’s all just IM. 
I too have tracked Cynefin since before its beginning. I’m still trying to understand aspects of it. I’m even still struggling with whether the claim is that situations are objectively in one domain or the other, or whether it’s a matter of how you interpret them. I tend to think it’s the latter but it’s very hard to tell. After all, how would you ever know there were or were not unknown unknowns? And once you add people, well, do you really know what might happen next? If the pandemic isn’t a complex situation then I don’t know what is. However, you can only respond with solutions from the complicated/expert world, albeit within a framework of understanding that you’re not in control and you really don’t know what’s coming next. 


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Patrick,

Actually, I was trying to communicate that data must reside outside of a system's boundaries. Data is fundamentally a phenomenological experience; for example, is it meaningful to talk about "light" or "sound" separately from how we perceive them?

Even abstract data is tied to the human experience. Numbers and codes devoid of context mean precisely nothing, so it is our understanding of the data which enables its interpretation. Any information processing system mediates but never fully erases that interpretative boundary.

Indeed, I suspect when people talk about "data" being turned into "information", they are mostly referring to the extra utility resulting from such a mediation process. This can take many forms, including automated postprocessing algorithms and manual human analysis. The output of each mediation itself can become a new input ("data") to be further mediated in some way ("information").

While I think the nomenclature is imprecise and at odds with other definitions of information (eg Shannon), you can see this process occurring in a vast number of ways without needing to limit it to "information processing ... in a database".

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 5:36 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Stephen, I’m with you on the broad intent of your email, but I fear you have been “corrupted” by the data propagandists, in that you are conflating “pieces of information in a system” with “data”.

To my mind, “data” should be confined to “structured fragments of information within a coherent, bounded and designed information processing system and sitting in a database”. That is basically what it means in an organisational context.

To give it the broader sense is to lay ourselves open to the whole DIKW myth.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 4 Jan 2022, at 3:20 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...

David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.

This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. The knowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.

We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.

However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.

This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.

In short:

  • The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist because of data
  • New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems
  • However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:
Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

Happy New Year to All,

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC



Valdis Krebs
 

Hi Stephen!

I like your riff metaphor… I think we all need to do more riffing at work also! 😎  One of the reasons I quit the corporate world and started my own business was to have that freedom to “riff” on the knowledge I had accumulated and the knowledge I enjoyed applying to various problems. It is great to have clients that are all so different — from suits to sandals. That diversity also makes a great learning environment, including for us, who are supposed to be teaching/coaching/advising/guiding.

Rachmaninoff to Rock to Reggae to Ragas  😉

Valdis


Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC


Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Stephen, Right, so we are in one of those “same word dramatically different meanings” situations that KM is so prone to 

e.g. ontology - theory of real existing things or a structure of concepts attributes and relationships (not real things); 
asset - thing that we own, or thing that we don’t own but we should somehow manage.

It would seem that “data” is one of those risky words. The IT folks think the stuff in their databases should partake of the fundamental properties of your data, and suddenly, poof, DIKW and database managers rule!

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 5 Jan 2022, at 6:19 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,

Actually, I was trying to communicate that data must reside outside of a system's boundaries. Data is fundamentally a phenomenological experience; for example, is it meaningful to talk about "light" or "sound" separately from how we perceive them?

Even abstract data is tied to the human experience. Numbers and codes devoid of context mean precisely nothing, so it is our understanding of the data which enables its interpretation. Any information processing system mediates but never fully erases that interpretative boundary.

Indeed, I suspect when people talk about "data" being turned into "information", they are mostly referring to the extra utility resulting from such a mediation process. This can take many forms, including automated postprocessing algorithms and manual human analysis. The output of each mediation itself can become a new input ("data") to be further mediated in some way ("information").

While I think the nomenclature is imprecise and at odds with other definitions of information (eg Shannon), you can see this process occurring in a vast number of ways without needing to limit it to "information processing ... in a database".

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 5:36 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen, I’m with you on the broad intent of your email, but I fear you have been “corrupted” by the data propagandists, in that you are conflating “pieces of information in a system” with “data”.

To my mind, “data” should be confined to “structured fragments of information within a coherent, bounded and designed information processing system and sitting in a database”. That is basically what it means in an organisational context.

To give it the broader sense is to lay ourselves open to the whole DIKW myth.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter%20(2).jpg>

On 4 Jan 2022, at 3:20 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...

David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.

This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. The knowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.

We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.

However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.

This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.

In short:

  • The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist because of data
  • New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems
  • However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:
Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

Happy New Year to All,

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC




Murray Jennex
 

I disagree Patrick.  I think the definitions here are pretty clear, we know what data, information, knowledge, and what I call actionable intelligence (instead of wisdom) are.  I think the original question on music was pretty easy to answer. Data was the frequencies of notes, information was the stringing together and duration of notes, knowledge was knowing what combinations sounded pleasing, actionable intelligence was putting it all together into a song (sorry, I was a physicist in a previous career so this seems straight forward to me).  I've done much work on the dikw pyramid/model and have transformed it into a more process based model and less of a taxonomy.  I've attached my two articles on this....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

Hi Stephen, Right, so we are in one of those “same word dramatically different meanings” situations that KM is so prone to 

e.g. ontology - theory of real existing things or a structure of concepts attributes and relationships (not real things); 
asset - thing that we own, or thing that we don’t own but we should somehow manage.

It would seem that “data” is one of those risky words. The IT folks think the stuff in their databases should partake of the fundamental properties of your data, and suddenly, poof, DIKW and database managers rule!

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 5 Jan 2022, at 6:19 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Actually, I was trying to communicate that data must reside outside of a system's boundaries. Data is fundamentally a phenomenological experience; for example, is it meaningful to talk about "light" or "sound" separately from how we perceive them?
Even abstract data is tied to the human experience. Numbers and codes devoid of context mean precisely nothing, so it is our understanding of the data which enables its interpretation. Any information processing system mediates but never fully erases that interpretative boundary.
Indeed, I suspect when people talk about "data" being turned into "information", they are mostly referring to the extra utility resulting from such a mediation process. This can take many forms, including automated postprocessing algorithms and manual human analysis. The output of each mediation itself can become a new input ("data") to be further mediated in some way ("information").
While I think the nomenclature is imprecise and at odds with other definitions of information (eg Shannon), you can see this process occurring in a vast number of ways without needing to limit it to "information processing ... in a database".
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 5:36 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen, I’m with you on the broad intent of your email, but I fear you have been “corrupted” by the data propagandists, in that you are conflating “pieces of information in a system” with “data”.

To my mind, “data” should be confined to “structured fragments of information within a coherent, bounded and designed information processing system and sitting in a database”. That is basically what it means in an organisational context.

To give it the broader sense is to lay ourselves open to the whole DIKW myth.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter%20(2).jpg>

On 4 Jan 2022, at 3:20 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...
David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.
This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. The knowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.
We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.
However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.
This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.
In short:
  • The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist because of data
  • New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems
  • However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:
Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

Happy New Year to All,

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC




Patrick Lambe
 

My point Murray is that while “you” may have a clear understanding of how you are using those terms, many others of “us” do not. In the contexts in which KM is being discussed within organisations, the language being used is notoriously less precise and much more slippery, and that’s where the problems arise, where the attributes of one sense (which is not clear to the discussants) are wrongly assimilated to a looser or “street" sense. I gave a couple of other examples.

My feeling is that we should try to steer clear of such slippery language and certainly not put it into a propaganda model that is floated around without any control over how the meanings are defined. Which is what happened with DIKW.

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 5 Jan 2022, at 2:52 PM, Murray Jennex <murphjen@...> wrote:

I disagree Patrick.  I think the definitions here are pretty clear, we know what data, information, knowledge, and what I call actionable intelligence (instead of wisdom) are.  I think the original question on music was pretty easy to answer. Data was the frequencies of notes, information was the stringing together and duration of notes, knowledge was knowing what combinations sounded pleasing, actionable intelligence was putting it all together into a song (sorry, I was a physicist in a previous career so this seems straight forward to me).  I've done much work on the dikw pyramid/model and have transformed it into a more process based model and less of a taxonomy.  I've attached my two articles on this....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

Hi Stephen, Right, so we are in one of those “same word dramatically different meanings” situations that KM is so prone to 

e.g. ontology - theory of real existing things or a structure of concepts attributes and relationships (not real things); 
asset - thing that we own, or thing that we don’t own but we should somehow manage.

It would seem that “data” is one of those risky words. The IT folks think the stuff in their databases should partake of the fundamental properties of your data, and suddenly, poof, DIKW and database managers rule!

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 5 Jan 2022, at 6:19 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Actually, I was trying to communicate that data must reside outside of a system's boundaries. Data is fundamentally a phenomenological experience; for example, is it meaningful to talk about "light" or "sound" separately from how we perceive them?
Even abstract data is tied to the human experience. Numbers and codes devoid of context mean precisely nothing, so it is our understanding of the data which enables its interpretation. Any information processing system mediates but never fully erases that interpretative boundary.
Indeed, I suspect when people talk about "data" being turned into "information", they are mostly referring to the extra utility resulting from such a mediation process. This can take many forms, including automated postprocessing algorithms and manual human analysis. The output of each mediation itself can become a new input ("data") to be further mediated in some way ("information").
While I think the nomenclature is imprecise and at odds with other definitions of information (eg Shannon), you can see this process occurring in a vast number of ways without needing to limit it to "information processing ... in a database".
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 5:36 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen, I’m with you on the broad intent of your email, but I fear you have been “corrupted” by the data propagandists, in that you are conflating “pieces of information in a system” with “data”.

To my mind, “data” should be confined to “structured fragments of information within a coherent, bounded and designed information processing system and sitting in a database”. That is basically what it means in an organisational context.

To give it the broader sense is to lay ourselves open to the whole DIKW myth.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter%20(2).jpg>

On 4 Jan 2022, at 3:20 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...
David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.
This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. The knowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.
We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.
However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.
This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.
In short:
  • The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist because of data
  • New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems
  • However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:
Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

Happy New Year to All,

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC



<Jennex_Bartczak_Revised_Knowledge_Pyramid.pdf><Jennex_Data_Base_final_2017.pdf><SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>


Patrick Lambe
 

I hope that isn’t a pyramid, Valdis, with Rachmaninov at the base, and Ragas at the top ;)

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 5 Jan 2022, at 7:35 AM, Valdis Krebs via groups.io <orgnet9@...> wrote:

Hi Stephen!

I like your riff metaphor… I think we all need to do more riffing at work also! 😎  One of the reasons I quit the corporate world and started my own business was to have that freedom to “riff” on the knowledge I had accumulated and the knowledge I enjoyed applying to various problems. It is great to have clients that are all so different — from suits to sandals. That diversity also makes a great learning environment, including for us, who are supposed to be teaching/coaching/advising/guiding.

Rachmaninoff to Rock to Reggae to Ragas  😉

Valdis


Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC



Murray Jennex
 

perhaps that is what happened to dikw but if you look at my papers you see I define my terms


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: Murray Jennex <murphjen@...>
Cc: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

My point Murray is that while “you” may have a clear understanding of how you are using those terms, many others of “us” do not. In the contexts in which KM is being discussed within organisations, the language being used is notoriously less precise and much more slippery, and that’s where the problems arise, where the attributes of one sense (which is not clear to the discussants) are wrongly assimilated to a looser or “street" sense. I gave a couple of other examples.

My feeling is that we should try to steer clear of such slippery language and certainly not put it into a propaganda model that is floated around without any control over how the meanings are defined. Which is what happened with DIKW.

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 5 Jan 2022, at 2:52 PM, Murray Jennex <murphjen@...> wrote:

I disagree Patrick.  I think the definitions here are pretty clear, we know what data, information, knowledge, and what I call actionable intelligence (instead of wisdom) are.  I think the original question on music was pretty easy to answer. Data was the frequencies of notes, information was the stringing together and duration of notes, knowledge was knowing what combinations sounded pleasing, actionable intelligence was putting it all together into a song (sorry, I was a physicist in a previous career so this seems straight forward to me).  I've done much work on the dikw pyramid/model and have transformed it into a more process based model and less of a taxonomy.  I've attached my two articles on this....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

Hi Stephen, Right, so we are in one of those “same word dramatically different meanings” situations that KM is so prone to 

e.g. ontology - theory of real existing things or a structure of concepts attributes and relationships (not real things); 
asset - thing that we own, or thing that we don’t own but we should somehow manage.

It would seem that “data” is one of those risky words. The IT folks think the stuff in their databases should partake of the fundamental properties of your data, and suddenly, poof, DIKW and database managers rule!

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 5 Jan 2022, at 6:19 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Actually, I was trying to communicate that data must reside outside of a system's boundaries. Data is fundamentally a phenomenological experience; for example, is it meaningful to talk about "light" or "sound" separately from how we perceive them?
Even abstract data is tied to the human experience. Numbers and codes devoid of context mean precisely nothing, so it is our understanding of the data which enables its interpretation. Any information processing system mediates but never fully erases that interpretative boundary.
Indeed, I suspect when people talk about "data" being turned into "information", they are mostly referring to the extra utility resulting from such a mediation process. This can take many forms, including automated postprocessing algorithms and manual human analysis. The output of each mediation itself can become a new input ("data") to be further mediated in some way ("information").
While I think the nomenclature is imprecise and at odds with other definitions of information (eg Shannon), you can see this process occurring in a vast number of ways without needing to limit it to "information processing ... in a database".
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 5:36 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen, I’m with you on the broad intent of your email, but I fear you have been “corrupted” by the data propagandists, in that you are conflating “pieces of information in a system” with “data”.

To my mind, “data” should be confined to “structured fragments of information within a coherent, bounded and designed information processing system and sitting in a database”. That is basically what it means in an organisational context.

To give it the broader sense is to lay ourselves open to the whole DIKW myth.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter%20(2).jpg>

On 4 Jan 2022, at 3:20 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...
David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.
This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. The knowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.
We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.
However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.
This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.
In short:
  • The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist because of data
  • New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems
  • However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:
Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

Happy New Year to All,

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC



<Jennex_Bartczak_Revised_Knowledge_Pyramid.pdf><Jennex_Data_Base_final_2017.pdf><SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>


Patrick Lambe
 

I do regularly look at your publications Murray, you are one of the good and the great, not merely in what and how you write yourself, but in the editorial/curation work you do to get other solid research published.

The issue here is that “in the wild” careful definitions get away from us, and so we need to be sensitive to the vocabularies where that happens and the consequences of misuse/careless use - i.e. where management decisions and actions are taken the basis of an imprecise use of language lifted from elsewhere without care for how they were supposed to be defined.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 5 Jan 2022, at 3:13 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:

perhaps that is what happened to dikw but if you look at my papers you see I define my terms


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: Murray Jennex <murphjen@...>
Cc: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

My point Murray is that while “you” may have a clear understanding of how you are using those terms, many others of “us” do not. In the contexts in which KM is being discussed within organisations, the language being used is notoriously less precise and much more slippery, and that’s where the problems arise, where the attributes of one sense (which is not clear to the discussants) are wrongly assimilated to a looser or “street" sense. I gave a couple of other examples.

My feeling is that we should try to steer clear of such slippery language and certainly not put it into a propaganda model that is floated around without any control over how the meanings are defined. Which is what happened with DIKW.

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 5 Jan 2022, at 2:52 PM, Murray Jennex <murphjen@...> wrote:

I disagree Patrick.  I think the definitions here are pretty clear, we know what data, information, knowledge, and what I call actionable intelligence (instead of wisdom) are.  I think the original question on music was pretty easy to answer. Data was the frequencies of notes, information was the stringing together and duration of notes, knowledge was knowing what combinations sounded pleasing, actionable intelligence was putting it all together into a song (sorry, I was a physicist in a previous career so this seems straight forward to me).  I've done much work on the dikw pyramid/model and have transformed it into a more process based model and less of a taxonomy.  I've attached my two articles on this....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

Hi Stephen, Right, so we are in one of those “same word dramatically different meanings” situations that KM is so prone to 

e.g. ontology - theory of real existing things or a structure of concepts attributes and relationships (not real things); 
asset - thing that we own, or thing that we don’t own but we should somehow manage.

It would seem that “data” is one of those risky words. The IT folks think the stuff in their databases should partake of the fundamental properties of your data, and suddenly, poof, DIKW and database managers rule!

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 5 Jan 2022, at 6:19 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Actually, I was trying to communicate that data must reside outside of a system's boundaries. Data is fundamentally a phenomenological experience; for example, is it meaningful to talk about "light" or "sound" separately from how we perceive them?
Even abstract data is tied to the human experience. Numbers and codes devoid of context mean precisely nothing, so it is our understanding of the data which enables its interpretation. Any information processing system mediates but never fully erases that interpretative boundary.
Indeed, I suspect when people talk about "data" being turned into "information", they are mostly referring to the extra utility resulting from such a mediation process. This can take many forms, including automated postprocessing algorithms and manual human analysis. The output of each mediation itself can become a new input ("data") to be further mediated in some way ("information").
While I think the nomenclature is imprecise and at odds with other definitions of information (eg Shannon), you can see this process occurring in a vast number of ways without needing to limit it to "information processing ... in a database".
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 5:36 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen, I’m with you on the broad intent of your email, but I fear you have been “corrupted” by the data propagandists, in that you are conflating “pieces of information in a system” with “data”.

To my mind, “data” should be confined to “structured fragments of information within a coherent, bounded and designed information processing system and sitting in a database”. That is basically what it means in an organisational context.

To give it the broader sense is to lay ourselves open to the whole DIKW myth.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter%20(2).jpg>

On 4 Jan 2022, at 3:20 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...
David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.
This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. The knowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.
We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.
However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.
This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.
In short:
  • The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist because of data
  • New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems
  • However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:
Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

Happy New Year to All,

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC



<Jennex_Bartczak_Revised_Knowledge_Pyramid.pdf><Jennex_Data_Base_final_2017.pdf><SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>


Stephen Bounds
 


(This response is a work in progress, so excuse any clumsiness in language.)


Hi Robert,

Some years ago, I argued with Dave at length about whether all systems should be "complex", since no system can ever be "truly" simple as long as intelligent and autonomous beings are involved.

To reconcile the Cynefin framework with the fundamentally unpredictable capabilities of any "complex system", I believe we need to introduce the concept of "behavioural collapse". This occurs when groups of people align their behaviour to a limited set of norms with a primary or secondary goal of improving the predictability of system outcomes. Queuing to receive a service is probably the best-known form of this behaviour, but almost all processes require some sort of behavioural alignment.

A system's Cynefin domain, therefore, is primarily determined not by an objective assessment of its systems components and interactions but by the level of behavioural collapse it exhibits. The amount and persistence of behavioural collapse is a dynamic behaviour rather than a static one, which accounts for much of the shift of systems between Cynefin domains over time (the other being external environmental impacts).

We can further distinguish between 'voluntary behavioural collapse' (VBC) through adoption of practices and norms, and 'coercive behavioural collapse' (CBC) through punishments and laws.

Cynefin domains can then be mapped onto the type and level of observed behavioural collapse as follows:

  • Simple -- high VBC, high CBC
  • Complicated -- high VBC, low CBC
  • Complex -- low VBC, low CBC
  • Chaotic -- low VBC, high CBC

The chief benefit of this classification is that it acknowledges the role of both leaders and individuals in the outcomes achieved, and moves away from the unfortunate tendency to see the complicated domain as a good space to exhibit "strong leadership" (it is not, except perhaps in the servant-leader sense).

This also leads to an interesting conclusion: that the Cynefin domain of COVID-19 response varied by country. While obviously over-simplifying for the purposes of the argument:

  • With strict rules and high adherence to expert vaccination advice, Australia has largely attempted a simple response to the pandemic
  • The Swedish model of a highly-informed population mostly making individual choices aligns with a complicated response
  • With overall low levels of lockdown and alignment to health advice, the USA best demonstrated a complex response to the pandemic
  • Finally, the Philippines is a good demonstration of a chaotic response due to a high focus on enforcement and less on voluntary behaviors

None of these approaches are necessarily "better" or "worse" from an outcomes perspective; I am simply observing the different systemic patterns at play.

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 10:05 pm, Robert M. Taylor via groups.io wrote:

WRT dikw I do believe one problem is the difficulty of language when we want to denote a meaning-carrying or signing/signalling unit. We have words like seme, semanteme and sememe but these are very difficult concepts. I don’t like dikw although I’ve admitted to having used it way back myself. And there may be contexts in which it has utility - but only within contexts, not as a general shorthand. Two of the different contexts used in this discussion would be the business context and the human cognitive psychology one. It certainly is helpful to interpret human intelligence in terms of cooperating layers of processing. For instance, the retina picks up light. Way beyond that we perceive regions and edges, segment the scene into objects and way beyond that we perhaps have an aesthetic appreciation of the painting. But it’s more like a blackboard architecture than a linear process, and we know that expectation plays a significant role. Likewise in the business context we know that data may be analysed to produce higher-level insights - but there would be many caveats to that before we could use dikw. Then there’s the issue of when knowledge is codified and I know some say it has now become information. Is it just a question of what role the seme (see?) is playing? And for whom, at which time? The big problem that matters here for km I think is that as a result many have missed the link to experience and practice altogether - leading people to think it’s all just IM. 
I too have tracked Cynefin since before its beginning. I’m still trying to understand aspects of it. I’m even still struggling with whether the claim is that situations are objectively in one domain or the other, or whether it’s a matter of how you interpret them. I tend to think it’s the latter but it’s very hard to tell. After all, how would you ever know there were or were not unknown unknowns? And once you add people, well, do you really know what might happen next? If the pandemic isn’t a complex situation then I don’t know what is. However, you can only respond with solutions from the complicated/expert world, albeit within a framework of understanding that you’re not in control and you really don’t know what’s coming next. 


Murray Jennex
 

I do agree on that, we are simpatico with that thought (how's that for using a word that may have different definitions?)


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 11:24 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

I do regularly look at your publications Murray, you are one of the good and the great, not merely in what and how you write yourself, but in the editorial/curation work you do to get other solid research published.

The issue here is that “in the wild” careful definitions get away from us, and so we need to be sensitive to the vocabularies where that happens and the consequences of misuse/careless use - i.e. where management decisions and actions are taken the basis of an imprecise use of language lifted from elsewhere without care for how they were supposed to be defined.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 5 Jan 2022, at 3:13 PM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:

perhaps that is what happened to dikw but if you look at my papers you see I define my terms


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: Murray Jennex <murphjen@...>
Cc: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

My point Murray is that while “you” may have a clear understanding of how you are using those terms, many others of “us” do not. In the contexts in which KM is being discussed within organisations, the language being used is notoriously less precise and much more slippery, and that’s where the problems arise, where the attributes of one sense (which is not clear to the discussants) are wrongly assimilated to a looser or “street" sense. I gave a couple of other examples.

My feeling is that we should try to steer clear of such slippery language and certainly not put it into a propaganda model that is floated around without any control over how the meanings are defined. Which is what happened with DIKW.

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 5 Jan 2022, at 2:52 PM, Murray Jennex <murphjen@...> wrote:

I disagree Patrick.  I think the definitions here are pretty clear, we know what data, information, knowledge, and what I call actionable intelligence (instead of wisdom) are.  I think the original question on music was pretty easy to answer. Data was the frequencies of notes, information was the stringing together and duration of notes, knowledge was knowing what combinations sounded pleasing, actionable intelligence was putting it all together into a song (sorry, I was a physicist in a previous career so this seems straight forward to me).  I've done much work on the dikw pyramid/model and have transformed it into a more process based model and less of a taxonomy.  I've attached my two articles on this....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

Hi Stephen, Right, so we are in one of those “same word dramatically different meanings” situations that KM is so prone to 

e.g. ontology - theory of real existing things or a structure of concepts attributes and relationships (not real things); 
asset - thing that we own, or thing that we don’t own but we should somehow manage.

It would seem that “data” is one of those risky words. The IT folks think the stuff in their databases should partake of the fundamental properties of your data, and suddenly, poof, DIKW and database managers rule!

P


Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 5 Jan 2022, at 6:19 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Patrick,
Actually, I was trying to communicate that data must reside outside of a system's boundaries. Data is fundamentally a phenomenological experience; for example, is it meaningful to talk about "light" or "sound" separately from how we perceive them?
Even abstract data is tied to the human experience. Numbers and codes devoid of context mean precisely nothing, so it is our understanding of the data which enables its interpretation. Any information processing system mediates but never fully erases that interpretative boundary.
Indeed, I suspect when people talk about "data" being turned into "information", they are mostly referring to the extra utility resulting from such a mediation process. This can take many forms, including automated postprocessing algorithms and manual human analysis. The output of each mediation itself can become a new input ("data") to be further mediated in some way ("information").
While I think the nomenclature is imprecise and at odds with other definitions of information (eg Shannon), you can see this process occurring in a vast number of ways without needing to limit it to "information processing ... in a database".
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 5:36 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen, I’m with you on the broad intent of your email, but I fear you have been “corrupted” by the data propagandists, in that you are conflating “pieces of information in a system” with “data”.

To my mind, “data” should be confined to “structured fragments of information within a coherent, bounded and designed information processing system and sitting in a database”. That is basically what it means in an organisational context.

To give it the broader sense is to lay ourselves open to the whole DIKW myth.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter%20(2).jpg>

On 4 Jan 2022, at 3:20 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...
David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.
This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. The knowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.
We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.
However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.
This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.
In short:
  • The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist because of data
  • New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems
  • However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:
Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

Happy New Year to All,

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC



<Jennex_Bartczak_Revised_Knowledge_Pyramid.pdf><Jennex_Data_Base_final_2017.pdf><SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>


Valdis Krebs
 

No, Patrick.  Not a pyramid at all… maybe more like intersecting circles in a Venn diagram? Also, I like alliteration. 😉

Yes, these definitions are very slippery, and localized — sometimes it is very difficult to converse across groups that should be similar in their concepts and vocabulary, but are not.  One’s vocabulary often reveals the group(s) one belongs to.

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC


Patrick Lambe
 

Yes, Valdis - or (2) where people are ostensibly using the same vocabulary but talking at cross purposes because they mean quite different things, or (3) when others just use whatever words they think will “work” to get the outcomes they want. I’ve seen all three syndromes.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 5 Jan 2022, at 5:39 PM, Valdis Krebs via groups.io <orgnet9@...> wrote:

No, Patrick.  Not a pyramid at all… maybe more like intersecting circles in a Venn diagram? Also, I like alliteration. 😉

Yes, these definitions are very slippery, and localized — sometimes it is very difficult to converse across groups that should be similar in their concepts and vocabulary, but are not.  One’s vocabulary often reveals the group(s) one belongs to.

Valdis

Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC



Tim Powell
 

With all respect due the eloquent eminences in this chat, I’ll mention my own model, the Knowledge Value Chain®.    I first published this in 1996 in reaction to — in rebellion from, actually — the US government’s “intelligence cycle” (IC) model.  (I’m not an academic, but an independent management consultant — so you may have missed this.)

 

What I found lacking in the IC model (and others like it) were (1) its lack of attention to the user (the demand side), (2) its lack of attention to the work needed to move from step to step, and (3) its implication that intelligence/knowledge is an endless rinse-and-repeat loop — instead of a more linear “manufacturing” process, as my experience shows it to be.  In short, most of these supply-centric models are “in-vacuum” and do not consider forces exogenous to the knowledge process — for example, economics in general and, in particular, the demand side.

 

As one client recently put it, “[The KVC] was a really useful diagram due to the actions needed to move through the stages and that it didn’t just stop at knowledge like a lot of the others.”

 

I’ve refined the KVC model during the past quarter of a century, and find it serves many client situations. While I have had the occasional person say they don’t “agree with” the model — when queried, they’re consistently short on specifics.  Any thoughts from this group, including constructive criticism, would be most welcome.

 

My own nagging thought is that, if anything, my model does not sufficiently account for the non-rational forces that so obviously impact decision making at both the individual and enterprise levels.

 

I did stay with the triangle format, which, as well-worn as it is, seems to fit — and is kind of embedded in our collective narrative DNA (at least since the ancient Egyptians, I suppose.)  

 

Murray, like you I found the concept of “intelligence” — which I define as knowledge socialized among those empowered to act upon it — more useful than “wisdom.”

 

Wishing you all a happy and healthy 2022!

 

tp

 

TIM WOOD POWELL | President, The Knowledge Agency® | Author, The Value of Knowledge |

New York City, USA  |  TEL +1.212.243.1200 | 

SITE KnowledgeAgency.com | BLOG TimWoodPowell.com |

 

 

From: <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of "Murray Jennex via groups.io" <murphjen@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 1:54 AM
To: "plambe@..." <plambe@...>, "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

 

I disagree Patrick.  I think the definitions here are pretty clear, we know what data, information, knowledge, and what I call actionable intelligence (instead of wisdom) are.  I think the original question on music was pretty easy to answer. Data was the frequencies of notes, information was the stringing together and duration of notes, knowledge was knowing what combinations sounded pleasing, actionable intelligence was putting it all together into a song (sorry, I was a physicist in a previous career so this seems straight forward to me).  I've done much work on the dikw pyramid/model and have transformed it into a more process based model and less of a taxonomy.  I've attached my two articles on this....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

Hi Stephen, Right, so we are in one of those “same word dramatically different meanings” situations that KM is so prone to 

 

e.g. ontology - theory of real existing things or a structure of concepts attributes and relationships (not real things); 

asset - thing that we own, or thing that we don’t own but we should somehow manage.

 

It would seem that “data” is one of those risky words. The IT folks think the stuff in their databases should partake of the fundamental properties of your data, and suddenly, poof, DIKW and database managers rule!

 

P

 

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 

+65 98528511

web: 

www.straitsknowledge.com
resources: 

www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 

www.aithinsoftware.com

 

On 5 Jan 2022, at 6:19 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

 

Hi Patrick,

Actually, I was trying to communicate that data must reside outside of a system's boundaries. Data is fundamentally a phenomenological experience; for example, is it meaningful to talk about "light" or "sound" separately from how we perceive them?

Even abstract data is tied to the human experience. Numbers and codes devoid of context mean precisely nothing, so it is our understanding of the data which enables its interpretation. Any information processing system mediates but never fully erases that interpretative boundary.

Indeed, I suspect when people talk about "data" being turned into "information", they are mostly referring to the extra utility resulting from such a mediation process. This can take many forms, including automated postprocessing algorithms and manual human analysis. The output of each mediation itself can become a new input ("data") to be further mediated in some way ("information").

While I think the nomenclature is imprecise and at odds with other definitions of information (eg Shannon), you can see this process occurring in a vast number of ways without needing to limit it to "information processing ... in a database".

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2022 5:36 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:

Hi Stephen, I’m with you on the broad intent of your email, but I fear you have been “corrupted” by the data propagandists, in that you are conflating “pieces of information in a system” with “data”.

 

To my mind, “data” should be confined to “structured fragments of information within a coherent, bounded and designed information processing system and sitting in a database”. That is basically what it means in an organisational context.

 

To give it the broader sense is to lay ourselves open to the whole DIKW myth.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 

+65 98528511

web: 

www.straitsknowledge.com
resources: 

www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 

www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter%20(2).jpg>

 

On 4 Jan 2022, at 3:20 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:

 

Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...

David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.

This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. The knowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.

We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.

However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.

This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.

In short:

·         The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist because of data

·         New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems

·         However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge

Cheers,
Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================

On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:

Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.

 

I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔

 

Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.

 

Happy New Year to All,

 

Valdis

 

Valdis Krebs

Orgnet, LLC

 

 


Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Tim - I hate your pyramid, for all the reasons stated, but I do like your book very much, have issues with some parts of it, but more in the detail than the whole. I appreciate the fact that it is a refreshing and very distinctive/ interesting way at looking at how to get knowledge to “pay off” in organisations. In my view it’s an important contribution and deserves to be more widely accessible.

I also very much appreciate the avoidance of “wisdom” (one of those pernicious words that can mean practically anything you want it to) in favour of intelligence (and action).

The main reason the pyramid doesn’t work for me, is the linearity and hierarchy it (falsely) suggests. 

In line with other remarks here, I think we need representations that more accurately express the reflexivity of these elements (i.e. you can start anywhere to build greater value out of how the parts interact in the system).

Why is this important? Because a striking but misleading visual model leads the mind to unreflecting conclusions. As Elisabeth Camp and others in the infographic/cartography space have observed, visualisations tend to bypass our logical/rational processes and give our brains “free rides” to suggested conclusions that tend not to be subject to critical review (which is why maps and visualisations are much better territory for propagandists than text). And unreflecting conclusions/inferences in organisations tend to lead to bad management decisions (at least in my experience). Now I am sure that in your capable hands the image works fine. But you can’t control how it works when you’re not there.

Valdis would be well aware of this issue, I am sure. Social network maps need very careful handling for similar reasons.

David Williams’ work provides an excellent review and set of arguments for the value of a non-linear approach, and suggests some good criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of an image or model. His summary article was linked by Stephen at https://realkm.com/2016/01/07/a-model-for-understanding-knowledge-systems/ and it in turn is based on the more extensive article linked by Stan at https://jemi.edu.pl/vol-10-issue-1-2014/models-metaphors-and-symbols-for-information-and-knowledge-systems.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com


On 5 Jan 2022, at 11:01 PM, Tim Powell <tim.powell@...> wrote:

With all respect due the eloquent eminences in this chat, I’ll mention my own model, the Knowledge Value Chain®.    I first published this in 1996 in reaction to — in rebellion from, actually — the US government’s “intelligence cycle” (IC) model.  (I’m not an academic, but an independent management consultant — so you may have missed this.)
 
What I found lacking in the IC model (and others like it) were (1) its lack of attention to the user (the demand side), (2) its lack of attention to the work needed to move from step to step, and (3) its implication that intelligence/knowledge is an endless rinse-and-repeat loop — instead of a more linear “manufacturing” process, as my experience shows it to be.  In short, most of these supply-centric models are “in-vacuum” and do not consider forces exogenous to the knowledge process — for example, economics in general and, in particular, the demand side.
 
As one client recently put it, “[The KVC] was a really useful diagram due to the actions needed to move through the stages and that it didn’t just stop at knowledge like a lot of the others.”
 
I’ve refined the KVC model during the past quarter of a century, and find it serves many client situations. While I have had the occasional person say they don’t “agree with” the model — when queried, they’re consistently short on specifics.  Any thoughts from this group, including constructive criticism, would be most welcome.
 
My own nagging thought is that, if anything, my model does not sufficiently account for the non-rational forces that so obviously impact decision making at both the individual and enterprise levels.
 
I did stay with the triangle format, which, as well-worn as it is, seems to fit — and is kind of embedded in our collective narrative DNA (at least since the ancient Egyptians, I suppose.)  
 
Murray, like you I found the concept of “intelligence” — which I define as knowledge socialized among those empowered to act upon it — more useful than “wisdom.”
 
Wishing you all a happy and healthy 2022!
 
tp
 
TIM WOOD POWELL | President, The Knowledge Agency® | Author, The Value of Knowledge |
New York City, USA  |  TEL +1.212.243.1200 | 
 
 
From: <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of "Murray Jennex via groups.io" <murphjen@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 1:54 AM
To: "plambe@..." <plambe@...>, "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly
 

I disagree Patrick.  I think the definitions here are pretty clear, we know what data, information, knowledge, and what I call actionable intelligence (instead of wisdom) are.  I think the original question on music was pretty easy to answer. Data was the frequencies of notes, information was the stringing together and duration of notes, knowledge was knowing what combinations sounded pleasing, actionable intelligence was putting it all together into a song (sorry, I was a physicist in a previous career so this seems straight forward to me).  I've done much work on the dikw pyramid/model and have transformed it into a more process based model and less of a taxonomy.  I've attached my two articles on this....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Blog posts on the DIKW Pyramid and our ability to assess problems exponentially vs. linearly

Hi Stephen, Right, so we are in one of those “same word dramatically different meanings” situations that KM is so prone to 
 
e.g. ontology - theory of real existing things or a structure of concepts attributes and relationships (not real things); 
asset - thing that we own, or thing that we don’t own but we should somehow manage.
 
It would seem that “data” is one of those risky words. The IT folks think the stuff in their databases should partake of the fundamental properties of your data, and suddenly, poof, DIKW and database managers rule!
 
P
 
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 
+65 98528511

web: 
www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 
www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>
 
On 5 Jan 2022, at 6:19 AM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:
 
Hi Patrick,
Actually, I was trying to communicate that data must reside outside of a system's boundaries. Data is fundamentally a phenomenological experience; for example, is it meaningful to talk about "light" or "sound" separately from how we perceive them?
Even abstract data is tied to the human experience. Numbers and codes devoid of context mean precisely nothing, so it is our understanding of the data which enables its interpretation. Any information processing system mediates but never fully erases that interpretative boundary.
Indeed, I suspect when people talk about "data" being turned into "information", they are mostly referring to the extra utility resulting from such a mediation process. This can take many forms, including automated postprocessing algorithms and manual human analysis. The output of each mediation itself can become a new input ("data") to be further mediated in some way ("information").
While I think the nomenclature is imprecise and at odds with other definitions of information (eg Shannon), you can see this process occurring in a vast number of ways without needing to limit it to "information processing ... in a database".
Cheers,
Stephen. 
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 5:36 pm, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Hi Stephen, I’m with you on the broad intent of your email, but I fear you have been “corrupted” by the data propagandists, in that you are conflating “pieces of information in a system” with “data”. 
 
To my mind, “data” should be confined to “structured fragments of information within a coherent, bounded and designed information processing system and sitting in a database”. That is basically what it means in an organisational context.
 
To give it the broader sense is to lay ourselves open to the whole DIKW myth.
 
P
 
Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone: 
+65 98528511

web: 
www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping: 
www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter%20(2).jpg> 
 
On 4 Jan 2022, at 3:20 PM, Stephen Bounds <km@...> wrote:
 
Hi Valdis, to "riff" on your idea a bit more (pun intended) ...
David Williams' AKI model provides a more productive interpretation by focusing on how information, actions, and outcomes interact in a never-ending feedback loop. Thus the fundamental action-feedback loop when playing music is a physical action followed by a sensory reception.
This mechanical description is too limiting, of course, because it represents a single point in time. Theknowledge we sustain as musicians is a complex, evolving, and ever-refining web of internalised lessons - some formally taught, some individually learnt -- about how to play, why to play, and the results of that playing over many months and years.
We develop both a cultural and psycho-acoustic sense of "what sounds good". Our shared anatomical and group experiences, like language, make this experience imperfectly shareable with all of our peers.
However, I suggest that the experience of listening to jazz (for example) is fundamentally different for musicians and connoisseurs compared to those listening for the first time. Vigo's information theory posits that change in complexity is fundamental to the level of information content shared with the listener. Music requires the perfect balance of "just enough" information to keep listeners engaged. Things like II-V progressions act as a "shared language" to anchor our knowledge of the musical landscape, allowing for more the expression of more complex ideas without overwhelming.
This is also why explainers can be helpful: Despite a musical experience having exactly the same "data", highlighting the information patterns that experts perceive can help others to interpret a work for themselves.
In short:

·         The knowledge systems developed within our individual or collective intelligences exist becauseof data

·         New data, as mediated through information signals, may drive current and future experiences and behaviours of these systems

·         However, knowledge doesn't "comprise" of data, nor does data "reduce" or "refine" to knowledge

Cheers,
Stephen. 
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 4/01/2022 7:17 am, Valdis Krebs via groups.io wrote:
Interesting topic… I think I agree with Patrick, things are not as linear/progressing as they appear.
 
I am trying to figure out what “data” my ability to play the piano is based upon.  🤔
 
Sure, there was learning basic music notation early on.  But after that, there was a combinatorial explosion on what I can do. The size of that explosion depended on whom I met and who I learned from. Today I don’t sit down at the piano with a piece of music.  I sit down and improvise, based on what I am feeling/experiencing that day, and what “patterns” I have picked up over the years.  I can start with a simple minor scale, morph into a blues scale, jump over to a Phrygian mode, etc. etc. etc.  What data is this based upon?  Maybe some fundamentals I learned many years ago, but also I mixed those fundamentals differently than a similar person going through a similar process.  I mixed those fundamentals based on my teacher(s) and colleagues in music I had over the years. Someone else, who had a different mixture of teaching and people, may do things differently with their knowledge. And many pianists had no formal training at all and they can improvise much better than I. Our knowledge/wisdom is more a result of our personal history/communities than on any fundamental data.
 
Happy New Year to All,
 
Valdis
 
Valdis Krebs
Orgnet, LLC