Expert opinion is elicited in several categories. These categories can reflect the priorities of the organisation to which the meta knowledge resource belongs. Collectively, the categories provide a good indication of Knowledge Risk, with respect to the priorities chosen. Categories might be: importance, recovery, study vs experience, staff available, staff needed, learn time and other possibilities.
This information can be very useful when viewing it with respect to the entire map of meta knowledge, for instance:
Which knowledge is thought to take the longest time to learn?
Combining this question with other parameters can also reveal useful information, for instance:
Which knowledge takes longest to learn AND is thought to be difficult to recover?
Combining all of the categories might provide a useful view of knowledge risk.
Where is our high risk knowledge needed and what can we do about it?
Typically, between 4 and 6 categories are used with a maximum of 8 so that interview time is not unduly affected with opinion elicitation.
The map can reveal structural information about the knowledge, for instance:
Which departments from this knowledge area need to know how to deal with customers?
How much knowledge from these separate departments is in fact required by both?
(How similar are these departments from a knowledge perspective?)
Which of these departments requires the most knowledge in order to function?
At what stage in our project is this knowledge needed?
Do we have enough staff to deliver this knowledge?
It is possible for managers and others interested in the meta knowledge resource to define their own questions within the knowledge study tool and set up a map view which addresses their concerns.
Meta Knowledge Recourses are not intended to be created and used once. They are intended to become a dynamic and developing resource which changes as more is known about the knowledge and as knowledge requirements evolve.
How has the knowledge requirement for ‘this area’ changed over the last three years?
Might it change over the next three years and if so, how?
If we add this new capability to our business, how well can our existing knowledge service these needs and how much change is needed?
How have our knowledge risks changed since we implemented our improvement program?