The Selected Problems of Knowledge Visualization

ANNA PLAGA

Akademia Rolnicza w Szczecinie

Summary

The paper is defined knowledge visualization and explained the difference be-tween knowledge visualization and information visualization. The framework intro-duced in this paper based on three perspectives: A Knowledge Type, a Recipient Type and a Visualization Type Perspective. While the first two taxonomies are es-tablished, the visualization type perspective is new and is described particularly based on Eppler’s and Burkhard’s works. There are described selected knowledge formats methods such that: heuristic sketches, conceptual diagrams, visual meta-phors, knowledge animations, knowledge maps, domain structures.

Keywords: Knowledge Communication, Knowledge Visualization, Formats 1. Introduction

Knowledge communication designates the successful transfer of know-how (e.g., how to ac-complish a task), why (e.g., the cause-effect relationships of a complex phenomenon), know-what (e.g., the results of a test), and know-who (e.g., the experiences with others) through face-to-face (co-located) or media-based (virtual) interactions. This type of knowledge communication can take place synchronously or asynchronously. The first mode of communication refers to (often face to face) real-time interactions, while the latter designates delayed (usually media-based) inter-actions. We can use the term knowledge dialogues for the first type of (synchronous) knowledge communication, stressing the interactive and collaborative style of knowledge exchange in this communication mode [3]. For the second type of (asynchronous) knowledge communication is refer to the concept of knowledge media, which can enable knowledge transfer through technology based communication, collaboration, e-learning, retrieval and archiving services. Making knowl-edge visible so that it can be better accessed, discussed, valued or generally managed is a long standing objective in knowledge management. The main aim of paper is described selected issues of knowledge visualization such that: concept, needs and application areas, formats and examples. The field of knowledge visualization examines the use of visual representations to improve the creation and transfer of knowledge between at least two people. Knowledge visualization aims to improve the transfer and creation of knowledge among people by giving them richer means of expressing what they know. While information visualization typically helps to improve informa-tion retrieval, access and presentainforma-tion of large data sets - particularly in the interacinforma-tion of humans and computers - knowledge visualization primarily aims at augmenting knowledge-intensive communication between individuals, for example by relating new insights to already understood concepts, as in the case of visual metaphors. This visual communication of knowledge is relevant for several areas within knowledge management [3].

2. The needs and application areas for knowledge visualization

In knowledge management the transfer of knowledge is a core process, which can be im-proved by using our innate abilities to process visual representations. The potential of visualiza-tions are manifold. Today decision makers only use few visualization types, i.e. PowerPoint pres-entations, diagrams or clip arts for information exploration and for the transfer of knowledge. The last twenty years various information visualization methods were invented. However it has been neglected to link these methods to the background of managers and to the knowledge management life cycle. As a result managers have difficulties to adapt these new methods. What is missing is a mediating framework for the use of visualization methods for different tasks that concern manag-ers; starting from information exploration and ending with the transfer of knowledge. The methods should be customized to the recipients' cognitive background and information need. This missing framework would help managers to find the most promising visualization method for the individ-ual task [4].

The basic difference between knowledge visualization and information visualization is that knowledge visualization aims to improve the transfer and creation of knowledge between at last too person or group of person [1]. While information visualization typically helps to improve in-formation retrieval and access, then generally optimizes the presentation of large data sets and particularly in the interaction of humans and computers. Information visualization aims to explore large amounts of abstract (often numeric) data to derive new insights or simply make the stored data more accessible. Knowledge visualization, in contrast, facilitates the transfer and creation of knowledge among people by giving them richer means of expressing what they know.

Knowledge visualization gives companies a powerful set of tools and principles to present their often complex products and services in the most effective and simplest form, whether interac-tively online or on paper. Through knowledge visualization companies can market their skills, experiences, and know-how externally. Internally, it offers them an easy and efficient way to im-prove communication among different professional groups in their companies (such as among engineers and managers). Knowledge visualization approaches help to get attention and foster understanding.

We live in an "attention economy", where attention and time are scarce resources - hence ena-bling rapid understanding has become a business imperative. This is why knowledge visualization aims at lowering cognitive effort while maximizing attention. This is crucial for many business functions ranging from marketing, sales, corporate communication, to controlling or project man-agement. There are five main contextual issues [9]:

1. Which type of knowledge are you visualizing? Here we distinguish among know-what (factual knowledge such as financial indicators), know-how (skills), know-why (reason-ing, argumentation), know-who (people), know-what-if (scenarios), to name just a few of the most important forms of business knowledge.

2. Why are you visualizing that knowledge? What is the purpose of the visualization? Should you be able to learn from it, find experts, convince a client, or motivate employ-ees? How much time and resources should you invest to reach that goal?

3. Who are the target groups? In other words: who should use the knowledge map, sketch, metaphor, or diagram? What is their prior knowledge, what are their (cognitive) prefer-ences?

4. In which application context is the visualization going to be used? In other words: In which media, in what general setting is the visualization shown and explored (a manage-ment speech, an intranet site, a public website, a trade fair, etc.)?

5. Finally, as a last step, you choose the right visualization format or genre, as I mentioned these range from simple paper sketches, visual metaphoric posters, to complex computer-based interactive visualizations.

Knowledge visualization offers a systematic approach to transfer knowledge at various levels: among individuals, from individuals to groups, between groups, and from individuals and groups to the entire organization. To do so, knowledge must be recreated in the mind of the receiver. This depends on the recipient’s cognitive capacity to process the incoming stimuli. Thus, the person responsible for the transfer of knowledge not only needs to convey the relevant knowledge at the right time to the right person, he or she also needs to convey it in the right context and in a way so that it can ultimately be used and remembered. Graphics such as rich but easily understandable visual metaphors can serve exactly this purpose, as the brain can process images often more easily than text. In this context, visualization can also facilitate the problem of inter-functional knowl-edge communication, i.e., the communication among different stakeholders and experts with dif-ferent professional backgrounds [2].

3. The concept of visualization knowledge

Knowledge visualization designates all graphic means that can be used to construct and con-vey complex insights. Beyond the mere transport of facts, knowledge visualization aims to transfer insights, experiences, attitudes, values, expectations, perspectives, opinions and predictions, and this in a way that enables someone else to reconstruct, remember and apply these insights cor-rectly. Examples of knowledge visualization formats are complex, reasoned and often theory-driven conceptual diagrams (such as Michael Porter’s five forces chart), concept maps (such as Alien Novak’s concept mapping method), interactive visual metaphors (such as an iceberg of or-ganizational culture),or knowledge maps (such as Roche’s knowledge application map of the new drug approval process). It seems justified to refer to these graphic formats as knowledge visualiza-tions as both their content and their format are distinct from that of regular visual depicvisualiza-tions. In terms of their content, they capture not just (descriptive) facts or numbers, but rather (prescriptive and prognostic) insights, principles and relations. In terms of format, knowledge visualizations rely on indirect communication that triggers sense making activities in the viewer and motivate him or her to complete the picture him- or herself [2].

A majority of our brain’s activity deals with processing and analyzing visual images. Images are preattentive and processed before text. In comparison to text, visual images need less energy to be consumed. Miller reports that a human’s input channel capacity is greater when visual abilities are used. Our brain has a strong ability to identify patterns, which is examined in Gestalt psychol-ogy [4]. Visual imagery suggests that visual recall seems to be better than verbal recall. Alesan-drini [5] presents five advantages of abstract images: Instant: they can be grasped at once glance; Memorable: they can be easily recalled because we think in pictures; Automatic: their design logic is often automatically understood; Global: their literally enable us to see the big picture; Energiz-ing: they can motivate viewers and simulate their emotions [4].

For an effective transfer and creation of knowledge through visualization, at least three per-spectives (table 1) should be considered. The knowledge type perspective aims to identify the type

of knowledge that needs to be transferred. For our framework we distinguished five types of knowledge included in table 1.

Table 1. Three different perspectives of the knowledge visualization framework Knowledge type (what?) Visual goal (why?) Visualization format (how?) Know – what

(declarative knowledge)

Sharing or transferring (clari-fication, elicitation, socializa-tion)

Heuristic Sketches (e.g. ad-hoc drawings)

Know-how

(procedural knowledge)

Creating (discovery, combi-nation)

Conceptual Diagrams (e.g., Toulmin or process dia-grams) Know-why (experimental knowledge) Learning (acquisition, internalization) Visual Metaphors

(e.g., tree, bridge, juggling) Know-where

(orientation knowledge)

Codifying (documentation externalization)

Knowledge Animations (e.g., ruler, mixer, etc.)

Know-who

(individual knowledge)

Finding

(e.g., experts, documents, groups)

Assessing /Evaluating (knowledge rating)

Knowledge Maps

(e.g., knowledge structure maps) Scientific Charts

(e.g., co-citation webs)

Source: [2]

The visualization motive perspective distinguishes several reasons why a visual knowledge representation is used. Motives for knowledge visualization use that can be anticipated are knowl-edge sharing through visual means, knowlknowl-edge crafting or creation, learning from visuals, codify-ing past experiences visually for future users or mappcodify-ing knowledge so that experts, for example within a large organization, can be more easily identified.

4. Formats and examples of knowledge visualization

The visualization format perspective structures the visualization methods to six main groups: heuristic sketches, conceptual diagrams, visual metaphors, knowledge animations, knowledge maps and scientific formats. This distinction is derived from specific formats of representing in-sight and from different types of inin-sight. These visualization formats can be matched with ade-quate knowledge types and motives. Knowledge maps, for example can help to visualize know-who and thus make experts easier to locate. Visual metaphors can foster learning by displaying experiences (know-why) in an accessible way. Conceptual diagrams, for example process charts, can depict know-how (procedural knowledge) in order to share best practices. Heuristic sketches (as shown below) can help to create new knowledge of various forms.

a) Heuristic sketches are drawings that are used to assist the group reflection and communi-cation process by making knowledge-in-progress explicit and debatable. Generally a sketch is defined as “a rough drawing or painting in which an artist notes down his pre-liminary ideas for a work that will eventually be realized with greater precision and de-tail.” In the context of knowledge management, we call these sketches heuristic sketches

to highlight their problem solving potential. The main benefits of heuristic sketches are: they represent the main idea and key features of a preliminary study. They are versatile and accessible. They are fast and help to quickly visualize emergent notions. The use of a pen on a flipchart attracts the attention towards the communicator. Heuristic sketches al-low room for one’s own interpretations and foster the creativity in groups.

b) Conceptual diagrams are abstract, schematic representations used to explore structural relationships among parts. They help to reduce complexity, amplify cognition, and ex-plain causal relationships and to structure information. The type of knowledge that is conveyed by conceptual diagrams is analytic and their format is thus highly structured and systematic. Conceptual Diagrams are schematic depictions of abstract ideas with the help of standardized shapes (such as arrows, circles, pyramids or matrices) [1].

c) Visual metaphors combine the creative leap of sketches with the analytic rationality of conceptual diagrams and employ graphic metaphors to structure information and convey normative knowledge through the connotations of the employed metaphor. The knowl-edge that is conveyed is often: tin contrast to the reasoning conveyed through diagrams) procedural, thus motivating to apply the knowledge is a key ingredient of such visual metaphors. A metaphor provides the path from the understanding of something familiar to something new by carrying elements of understanding from the mastered subject to a new domain. This is why Aristotle calls the metaphor a tool of cognition. A metaphor provides rapid information, is highly instructive, and facilitates the process of learning. As Worren have pointed out, metaphors can also improve memorability and coordination in groups. Visual metaphors used for knowledge transfer or creation can either be natural objects or phenomena (e.g., mountains, icebergs, tornado) or artificial, man-made objects (e.g., a bridge, a ladder, a temple), activities (e.g., climbing, etc.), or concepts (e.g., war, family). Their main feature is that they organize information meaningfully. In doing so, they fulfill a dual function: first, they position information graphically to organize and structure it. Second, they convey an implicit insight about the represented information through the key characteristics (or associations) of the metaphor that is employed [2]. In figure 1 the metaphor of a bridge was used to convey how to lead successful negotiations.

d) Knowledge animations also convey procedural knowledge, but not in a static manner like visual metaphors but through interactive animation. Knowledge Animations are com-puter-supported interactive visualizations that allow users to control, interact, and ma-nipulate different types of information in a way that fosters the transfer and creation of knowledge. By interacting with the information, new insights are created or shared. Knowledge animations help to fascinate and focus people, to enable interactive collabora-tion and persistent conversacollabora-tions, and to illustrate, explore, and discuss complex issues in various contexts. An animation helps to explore large time-varying datasets and allows seeing the behavior of individual data entries in the global context of the whole dataset. In similar ways, the interactive parameter ruler enables teams and individuals to explore al-ternatives in real-time through sliders in the ruler [1].

e) Knowledge maps do not directly represent knowledge but rather reference it, though the use of cartographic conventions. Scientific charts finally, display as content scientific knowledge, such as publications, and show how they are related in terms of mutual influ-ence. Knowledge maps are graphic formats that follow cartographic conventions to refer-ence relevant knowledge. A knowledge map generally consists of two parts: a ground layer which represents the context for the mapping (such as an island), and the individual elements that are mapped within this context (e.g., towns). The ground layer typically consists of the mutual context that all employees can understand and relate to, such as a business model, a product, the competency areas, or a geographic map [6]. The elements which are mapped onto such a shared context range from experts and communities of practice to more explicit and codified forms of knowledge such as articles, patents, les-sons learned bases, or expert systems. Knowledge maps are thus graphic directories of knowledge-sources, -assets, -structures, -applications, or -development stages [2].

f) Domain structures visualization focuses on identifying and visually representing the dy-namics of scientific frontiers in a multidisciplinary context and allows new ways of ac-cessing knowledge sources (authors, institutions, papers, journals, etc.) by visualizing linkages, relationships, and structures of scientific domains. Digital libraries could be-come knowledge repositories by effectively categorizing, analyzing, and organization their contents [5]. New algorithms can be integrated in novel interfaces for the explora-tion of digital libraries where new search paradigms become decisive. While this knowl-edge visualization format is currently only used for knowlknowl-edge management in scientific communities, future application in corporate settings can be envisioned (for communities of practice)[1].

5. Summary

One of the most significant challenges to understanding knowledge management is the diffi-culty in pinpointing the concept of knowledge in a concrete fashion. A common approach to this subject is the positing of a hierarchical relationship between data, information, and knowledge. In this approach, it is widely held that data holds the most basic status. When processed for practical application, data is raised to the level of information. Information, in turn, is applied by individuals to create knowledge and knowledge visualization offers great potential for the creation of new knowledge in groups, thus enabling innovation.

Knowledge visualization offers methods to use the creative power of imagery and the possi-bility of fluid rearrangements and changes. It inspires and enables groups to create new

knowl-edge, for instance by use of heuristic sketches or visual metaphors. Unlike text, these graphic for-mats can be quickly and collectively changed and thus propagate the rapid and joint improvement of ideas.

Knowledge visualizations help to compress large amounts of reasoned information with the help of analytical frameworks, theories, and models that absorb complexity and render it accessi-ble A further, more general, application motive of knowledge visualization is its use as an effective strategy against information overload, which is a major problem in knowledge-intensive organiza-tions.

Bibliography

1. Epple M. J., Burkhard R., 2004. A Knowledge Visualization. Towards a new discipline and its Fields of application. University della Svizzera Italiana, Faculty of Commu-nication Science, paper #2.

2. Epple M. J., Burkhard R., 2004. A Knowledge Visualization. www.academy.net.

3. Eppler M., 2004. An Analysis of Knowledge Transfer in Decision Processes. Proceedings Knowledge Communication Problems between Experts and Managers. University of Lugano, Faculty of Communication Sciences, 3-25.

4. Burkhard R. A., 2004. Learning from Architects: The Difference between Knowledge Visualization and Information Visualization. www.academy.net.

5. Epple M. J., 2000. Conceptual Managment Tool. A Guide to Essential Workers. Univer-sity of St. Gallen Switzerland.

6. Chen, H.C., 2001. Knowledge Management System. The University of Arizona Tucson.

7.

a Knowledge Portal and the Concept Map of Group Knowledge, Proceedings of I-KNOW’ 05 Graz, Austria.

8. Isaacs W., 1997. Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York: Doubleday.

9. Interview with Martin Eppler 2005.

http://www.lets-focus.com/index.php?action=show&language=de&page=81 MIROSŁAWA MARCINIAK e-mail: miroslawa.marciniak@e-ar.pl ANNA PLAGA e-mail: anna.plaga@e-ar.pl Zakład Informatyki

Akademia Rolnicza w Szczecinie Ul. Monte Cassino 16, 70-466 Szczecin