KM Practice in Community College: Knowledge Visualization in KM Framework

Mohamad Yusrizal Mohamed Yusoff Kolej Komuniti Pasir Salak

Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi Perak, Malaysia

uk_7010@yahoocom

Jafreezal Jaafar1 and Ahmad Kamil Mahmood2

Computer Information Science Department Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS

Perak, Malaysia [1jafreez, 2kamilmh]@petronas.com.my

Abstract— Create a knowledge based community is a challenge. In connection, the researchers introduced a framework called "KM Hierarchical Framework" to perform Knowledge Management (KM) in Community College (CC). It is more challenging to realize the visualization of knowledge in community colleges. This paper aims to explore the potential of visualization for the Hierarchical Framework. The method used is to discuss two main issues, first the framework developed for the implementation of KMS at community colleges and second, appropriate matching of the existing conceptual framework for visual realize knowledge in KM framework developed by researches. Visualization is more apparent knowledge in KM especially for knowledge transfer and sharing. The results of the study found the integration between the KM framework and knowledge visualization framework is possible to make the knowledge in CC environment becomes visible.

I. INTRODUCTION

In this paper knowledge visualization is an approach to help the KM practice in CC. Hence it is focus on knowledge transfer and sharing so it is appropriate for knowledge visualization needs especially for the people as a knowledge manager in CC. An extended knowledge visualization framework is proposed that associates knowledge management tasks to suitable visualization techniques in CC environment. Section 2 gives a brief introduction to approaches on knowledge visualization framework and decision matrix. Section 3 presents an overview of the entire proposed framework for research domain. The paper is ended in section 4 by an outlook on ongoing research.

A. Introducing The Hierarchical KM Framework

The researchers built the KM framework as a result from

the studied framework that suitable to be adopted in community college environment. Thus, to support the transfer

and sharing knowledge in CC, the researchers had

recognized the enablers and support the activities that will define the KM practice in CC. Therefore the researchers have found certain enablers for the KM framework for CC, being: the people, process and technology. To realize the KM practice, supportive activities are needed. Here the researchers defined the training and education, and IT infrastructure and security, as the support activity for KM practice in CC. The people that had been defined included the CC staff, local community, alliance and also the CC KM team. The link among the CC staff, local community, and alliance to the CC’s portal, CC’s e-learning portal and CC’s network (social websites) is defined as a process towards KM practices.

Another process towards KM practices in CC is the interaction within the KM team. Here, the KM team is also

defined as an expert community. They will act progressively to maintain the KM practice in CC environment by using the approaches such as community of practices (CoPs), strategic communication and lesson learned from the topic discussed.

Then all these items are compiled in one system such as CMS. Using this technology as the platform for KM practice it will improve the KM practices’ current situation to be more specific and systematic. Hence, a lot of CMS technologies can be applied and can be developed and deployed as CC’s KM Portal. Below is the diagram of the KMS model proposed by the researchers for the CC’s KM Practices:

Fig. 1. Hierarchical Framework for KM in CC. Relationship between enabler and KM support activity for KM practice in CC environment.

978-1-4577-1884-7/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

Keywords; Community College, KMS, Knowledge Transfer, Knowledge Visualization.

B. Knowledge Visualization

Information and knowledge visualizations provide effective methods to represent and convey information- and knowledge-rich scenarios[2]. Eppler and Burkhard define knowledge visualization as the use of visual representations to improve the creation and transfer of knowledge between at least two persons [6]. The subject of knowledge visualization is a human. KV is primarily a matter of social sciences.

Knowledge visualization aims at visual perception of humans. Graphic methods of representation are at the heart [10]. Visualization format (How? How can the knowledge be represented (method)?).According to Cyras[10], the visualization format perspective structures the visualization formats to six main groups:

i. Heuristic sketches (e.g., ad-hoc drawings of complex ideas) also discuss by [3],[5]

ii. Conceptual diagrams (such as Porter's Five Forces diagram)

iii. Visual metaphors (such as Plato's cave metaphor of reality)

iv. Knowledge animations (such as a rotating double helix) v. Knowledge maps (such as a landscape of in-house

experts) vi. Domain structures (e.g., a co-citation network of

knowledge management literature.

Spatial strategies are needed to help individuals in acquiring, storing, restructuring, communicating, and utilizing knowledge and knowledge resources, as well as over-coming capacity limitations of individual working memory. Knowledge visualization may help students to organize and reorganize, structure and restructure, assess, evaluate, elaborate, communicate, and (co-)construct knowledge, and to utilize ideas and thoughts, as well as knowledge, about relevant contents and resources[9].

"Knowledge visualization" has been focused on structures of conceptual knowledge. Knowledge visualization methods in the educational context have been used for fostering idea generation, learning, assessment, and instruction. They use the term "knowledge visualization" with a focus on structure visualizations for the representation of conceptual knowledge [9].

Except for the technologies used for visualization, knowledge visualization differs from information visualization in a variety of aspects, as, for example, goals, benefits, content, or recipients, which are described in more detail by Eppler & Burkhard [4].One focus of information visualization and knowledge visualization is to organize information and knowledge in such a way that it may be accessed easily and comprehensively [9].

The visualization format perspective structures the visualization formats into seven main groups: structured text/tables, mental (non-material) visualization and visual story telling, heuristic sketches, conceptual diagrams/concept maps, visual metaphors, knowledge maps, and graphic interactive environments. These visualization types are based on prior visualization taxonomies and use the media

prerequisites as a classification criterion (from comparatively little media requirements for text and sketches to extensive multimedia requirements for interactive visual environments).

Fig. 2. The foundations of knowledge visualization. Work from the indicated areas has provided a basis from which a new science can emerge.[6]

Judelmen[4] illustrated as depict in Figure 2, the dynamic interrelationships between human internal cognitive processes (the top three elements) and the external knowledge represented in documents, augmented by social groups, and supported by technological materials and infrastructure. This complex system can be termed the “knowledge space”. It includes the three types of knowledge (knowing what, how, and why), people, the knowledge embedded in documents, and communication media or other technologies which facilitate transfer or application of knowledge [16].

II. KNOWLEDGE VISUALIZATION FRAMEWORK AND DECISION MATRIX

Eppler & Burkhard [6] emphasize five perspectives should be considered in the process of creating an effective visualization and knowledge transfer, namely: 1. What kind of knowledge is visualized (content)? 2. Why is the visualization of knowledge (goals, processes km)? 3. To whom is the knowledge visualization (target group)? 4. In that context it should be visualized (communicative situation: the participants,where / media)? 5. How knowledge is represented (method, format)? Perspective types of knowledge can be used to identify the type of knowledge that must be removed. Hence Eppler & Burkhard [6] developed the framework to achieve the goal to distinguish the types of knowledge that has been discussed, the six types of knowledge: declarative knowledge (know-what), procedural knowledge (know how) the knowledge, experience or the experience (know-why), the knowledge society related (know-who), orientation or location-based

knowledge (know-where), scenario-based knowledge (know-what-if), or normative, value-based knowledge. Furthermore, there are three different types of knowledge are mutually dependent, which all play a role in the coordination of human action [4]. This quality of inner cognition can be summarized as knowing what, knowing why, and how. Knowing what is called declarative knowledge, can be represented in (but do not take the form of) the documents in all media of communication (oral, written, printed, etc.). Declarative knowledge can be articulated in the language (for example, made clear), and thus feed an intelligent discourse and creative as the arts and science. Knowing why refers to knowledge that discusses the notion of reason or meaning of some phenomenon. It directs and defines the purpose of human action, and related to the value system propagated by the institutions of society. Know the knowledge of how, or procedural, is a skill that develops silently only from experience. Form of procedural knowledge, such as the ability to perform the operation, ballet, or speak a foreign language, which is difficult to articulate (e.g. representing) and manifests in the individual profession. Judelmen [4] also draws on the relationship of the three types of knowledge such as that illustrated by Figure 3.

Fig. 3. This image illustrates the dynamic interrelationships between human internal cognitive processes (the top three elements) and the external knowledge represented in documents, augmented by social groups, and supported by technological materials and infrastructure.[4]

A. Knowledge Visualization Framework by Eppler & Burkhard

Fig. 4. A Framework for the use of visualization in knowledge management. It contains six criteria knowledge type, KM function, target group, situation and visualization format.[6]

Conclude that with aid from the perspective of the purpose of visualization one can distinguish between a number of reasons why the visual representation of knowledge used in knowledge management .The motive to use visualization to share knowledge through visual suggestion, creation of knowledge, learning from visual representations, a codification of past experience visual for future users, or knowledge of the mapping so that the members, for example in a large organization, can be more easily identified.

Perspective emphasizes the fact that the target group visualization of knowledge must accommodate the main priority target groups and potential, their prior knowledge, expectations and operating time must be taken into account when choosing a visualization format. Examples are given in this situation by assuming that a manager may be more convenient to analyze quantitative charts, while the communication to the employee may involve a format that is more fun as a visual metaphor. With regard to the need visualization routine update, repair or maintenance (such as on-line knowledge map) group is responsible for tasks such as updating or should be taken into account (particularly with respect to their technological capabilities). If not, the visualization of knowledge can quickly become obsolete due to insufficient maintenance of the target group. This framework is suitable to be adapted within the study conducted by researchers today.

B. 3D Decision Matrix by Zeiller & Edlinger

KM task - KM instruments - visualization techniques: 3D

decision matriks. Model decision was introduced by Zeiller & Edlinger [1] as illustrated by Figure 5. Figure 5 shows a simple example composed than six task KM, eight KM and seven instruments visualization techniques. Grey indicates that cells manifest in Table 1 shows the KM instruments according to specific KM tasks so that the candidate must recognize the potential for visual representation. Instead of white cells indicate nodes contain adequate visualization technique that should not be implemented on an appropriate instrument and KM task. The numbers in cells indicate the position within the

range [0 ... 10] comes from an assessment of the previously mentioned criteria (levels of 10 Æ matched) based on the job. With a 3D perspective transformation matrix can be seen from a different dimension - that shows the different approaches for the visualization of knowledge. For example, apart looking for the best visualization technique begins with the task specific knowledge, e.g. knowledge acquisition, the matrix also may be used to identify all maintenance tasks applicable knowledge or knowledge of the maintenance of instruments that may benefit from specific visualization techniques, such an approach Galaxy. A multi-dimensional decision matrix has been introduced which underpins the management of knowledge in choosing a visualization technique that is suitable for a particular problem rather than the management of knowledge. The decision matrix provides them with a simple, easy to use - without the need to analyze complex and time consuming.

Fig. 5. A multi-dimensional decision matrix that supports knowledge manager in choosing a suitable visualization technique for a certain problem of knowledge management.[1]

III. KNOWLEDGE VISUALIZATION FOR KM IN CC

Fig. 6. The knowledge visualization extended framework. This show how knowledge visualization could be realized for KM in CC with beginning with the KM task. This framework embedded the knowledge visualization framework and the decision matrix as the visualization technique.

This section will discuss about the possible situation of KM task that could be happened in KM in CC and the algorithm according to the framework and the knowledge visualization technique.

A Real life example of KM task: Knowledge Use

For CC environment, there are only four categories of knowledge manager; there are staff, local community, and alliance and KM team. Let say a staff has decided to use knowledge in KM, the first thing is what type of knowledge to be used? Is it procedural (know how), declarative (know what) or others?.Then it will come with what is the KM task function? Is it just for identification?, transferring or something else? . What is the target?, is it for oneself? Staff? Local community or for the alliance?.

Then come with the situation, when he is that time, is he in face to face communication, doing speech, phone calling or may he in social network? Chatting via CC portal, or another forum? Or may be he is conducting a class by using the CC e-learning portal or another else that possible. All these situations could be a process towards KM practice. The next is technology role in this framework. Knowledge visualization will be more apparent by using technology such as CMS. To more clear at this stage, KM instrument such as semantic net can be used to visualize the knowledge. Moreover there many visualization format and as example is knowledge map such as mind map. Overall the visualization of knowledge could be possible in this research domain which KM practice in CC will be clear define as transfer and sharing knowledge. A. Real life example of knowledge visualization:

Knowledge Map Building a knowledge map consists in Building a knowledge map consists in representing contextual information, i.e. knowledge, using a visual metaphor chosen according to the future usage of this map, representing contextual information, i.e. knowledge, using a visual metaphor chosen according to the future usage of this map.[7] A knowledge map generally consists of two parts: a ground layer that represents the context for the mapping (such as a city), and the individual elements that are mapped within this context (e.g. streets)[6]. Generalize that visualization helps knowledge sharing, and that the findings are not specific to a particular visualization form (i.e. diagram, visual metaphor or knowledge map)[2]. Knowledge maps and technology roadmaps have become a popular way of capturing knowledge about people's know how and visualizing companies’ technological positions and future opportunities and threats. A knowledge or technology map can be expressed as ontology [1]. To conclude the knowledge map is the visualization technique that can be applied in KM practice in CC. Thus the researchers come out with the architecture of knowledge map and will be deployed as base in building the prototype or real system for the knowledge map in future.

Fig. 7. The basic elements of knowledge mapping for KM practice in cc adapted from [8].

IV. CONCLUSION

A knowledge visualization extended framework has been introduced that supports people in CC who are the knowledge managers in choosing a suitable visualization technique for a certain problem of knowledge management. The knowledge visualization extended framework provides them with a proper, easy to use tool – to visible the knowledge in KM practice in CC. Due to this stability the extended framework can grow and evolve to a comprehensive tool especially for a knowledge based community. Ongoing research concentrates on developing a prototype for KMS based on available CMS that possible supports the knowledge visualization. Since knowledge visualization is apparent knowledge for knowledge transfer and sharing. The milestone of this research depicts by followed figure:

Fig. 8. The milestone of research KM practice in CC.

REFERENCES

[1] A. Bäck, S. Vainikainen, C. Södergård, H. Juhola, “Semantic Web Technologies in Knowledge Management,” In ELPUB(2003) J. Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1892, pp.68–73.

[2] C. Hirsch, J. Hosking, J. Grundy, T . Chaffe, D. MacDonald, Y. Halytskyy, “The Visual Wiki: A New Metaphor for Knowledge Access and Management,” in Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Press, New York (2009), pp. 1-10.

[3] E. C. Okafor, C. C. Osuagwu, “Issues in Structuring the Knowledge-base of Expert Systems,” in The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 5 Issue 3, pp 313 - 322, available online at www.ejkm.com(2007)

[4] G. B. Judelman, “Knowledge Visualization Problems and Principles for Mapping the Knowledge Space” in Master dissertation: University of Lübeck, 2004, pp. 21-64.

[5] J. Salonen, “Knowledge Management For Visualising Social Online Services” in Master dissertation: Tampere University of Technology, 2007, pp 29-72.

[6] M. J. Eppler, R. A. Burkhard, “Visual representations in Knowledge Management: Framework and Cases,” in Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol. 11 No. 4 2007, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 112-122.

[7] M. Plantié, P. M. Riccio, “Knowledge Cartography and social network representation Application to collaborative platforms in scientific area,” in Sixth International Conference on Signal-Image Technology and Internet Based Systems, IEEE Press, New York (2010), pp. 217-224.

[8] S. Bresciani, M. J. Eppler, “The Benefits of Synchronous Collaborative Information Visualization: Evidence from an Experimental Evaluation,” in Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 15 no. 6, IEEE Press, New York, 2009, pp. 1073-1080.

[9] S.O. Tergan, T. Keller, “Knowledge and Information Visualization” in LNCS 3426, 2005, pp. 1 – 23.

[10] V. Čyras, “Distinguishing between knowledge visualization and knowledge representation in legal informatics,” in Schweighofer, E. (ed.) Semantisches Web und Soziale Netzwerke im Recht : Tagungsband des 12. Internationalen Rechtsinformatik Symposions IRIS 2009, Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft. (2009) , pp. 321-327.