7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

1/26

Knowledge Work

Agora Learning Laboratory

Researcher Pasi Hakkarainen

Agora Center, University of Jyvskyl

November 2003

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

2/26

INDEX

1 Approaches to Knowledge...........................................................................................................3

1.1 Tacit and Explicit Knowledge (Nonaka) .............................................................................3

1.2 Six Kinds of Personal Knowledge (Bereiter).......................................................................5

1.3 Knowledge in Knowledge Work (Davies & Naumann) ......................................................7

1.4 Summary ..............................................................................................................................8

2 Knowledge Work and Knowledge Workers ................................................................................9

2.1 Knowledge Work Definitions ..............................................................................................9

2.2 Knowledge Worker Definitions .........................................................................................10

2.3 Conclusions........................................................................................................................12

3 Knowledge Work Tasks and Activities .....................................................................................13

3.1 Knowledge Work Tasks and Activities (Davies)...............................................................13

3.2 Knowledge Work Activities (Ware & Degoey).................................................................16

3.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................18

4 Knowledge Work Productivity ..................................................................................................18

4.1 Difficulties with Measuring Knowledge Work (Ware & Degoey)....................................19

4.2 Proposals for Measuring Knowledge Work Productivity (Ware & Degoey) ....................19

4.3 Productivity in Knowledge Work (Davies) .......................................................................20

4.4 Knowledge Worker Constraints in the Productive Use of Information Technology (IT)

(Drury & Farhoomand) ..................................................................................................................21

4.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................22

5 Knowledge Communication and Knowledge Management Tools ............................................23

5.1 Personal Knowledge Management (Frand & Hixon) ........................................................23

5.2 Knowledge Management Tools (Dingsyr & Ryrvik) ....................................................23

5.3 Knowledge Workers Software (Davies) ............................................................................245.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................24

6 Summary & Conclusions ...........................................................................................................24

References ..........................................................................................................................................25

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

3/26

KNOWLEDGEWORK INGENERALThe purpose of this report is to provide different perspectives to knowledge work. Report provides

several definitions about: knowledge, knowledge work and knowledge worker. Also knowledge

work productivity and productivity measurement is examined. The chapter basis on the literature

study which was made in fall 2003.

1 APPROACHES TO KNOWLEDGEKnowledge can be defined in many ways. Usually knowledge is separated to subcategories in which

knowledge has specific characteristics. In this chapter three different approaches and different ways

to define knowledge are presented.

1.1TACIT AND EXPLICITKNOWLEDGE(NONAKA)Nonaka (1994) adopts a definition of knowledge as justified true belief. According to Nonaka it is

important to consider knowledge as a personal belief and emphasize the importance of the

justification of knowledge. In the theory of knowledge creationthe knowledge creation is seen as

a dynamic human process of justifying personal beliefs as part of an aspiration for the truth.

Although the terms information and knowledge are often used interchangeably, there is a clear

distinction between information and knowledge. Information is a flow of messages, while

knowledge is created and organized by the very flow of information, anchored on the commitment

and beliefs of its holder. This understanding emphasizes an essential aspect of knowledge that

relates to human action. (Nonaka, 1994. 15)

Nonaka distinguishes knowledge to tacitand explicitknowledge. Explicit knowledge refers to

knowledge that is transmittable in formal, systematic language. Tacit knowledge has a personal

quality, which makes it hard to formalize and communicate. Tacit knowledge is deeply rooted inaction, commitment, and involvement in a specific context. Tacit knowledge involves both

cognitive and technical elements. Cognitive elements, in other words, mental models include

schemata, paradigms, beliefs, and viewpoints that provide perspectives that help individuals to

perceive and define their world. Mental models help human beings to create and manipulate

analogies in their minds. By contrast, the technical element of tacit knowledge covers concrete

know-how, crafts, and skills that apply to specific context. (Nonaka, 1994. 16)

Nonaka provides definitions about knowledge and knowledge creation. He does not handle

knowledge work. Tacit knowledge can be divided to general and specific. Mental models can be

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

4/26

seen as general knowledge and technical knowledge is usually specific. Nonaka concentrates more

on organization dynamics than on individual activities in knowledge creation.

Marwick (2001) follows Nonakas definitions. Explicit knowledge is represented by some artifact,

such as a document or a video, which has typically been created with the goal of communicating

with another person. Tacit knowledge is what the knower knows, which is derived from experience

and embodies beliefs and values. Tacit knowledge is actionable knowledgeand therefore the most

valuable. Furthermore, tacit knowledge is the most important basis for the generation of new

knowledge, that is, according to Nonaka: the key to knowledge creation lies in the mobilization

and conversion of tacit knowledge. Both forms of knowledge are important for organizational

effectiveness. (Marwick, 2001. 814)

Nonakas and Takeuchis model of knowledge creation recognizes two kinds of knowledge, tacit

and explicit. Although its components are not spelled out, tacit knowledge would appear to include

five of the six kinds of personal knowledge discussed latter, the exception being statable

knowledge. Explicit knowledge comprises statable knowledge and conceptual artifacts, thus, as is

characteristic of folk theory of mind, making no distinction between them. Nonaka and Takeuchi

treat knowledge in the individual mind as primary. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 6)

Bereiter criticizes Nonakas and Takeuchis model of knowledge creation. Model falls short on four

counts: 1) Creativity, 2) Understanding, 3) Knowledge work, and 4) Collaborative knowledge

building.Although model holds that new knowledge is always created in individual minds, it does

not explain how minds produce original ideas and novel solutions. Although the model deals with

ways that knowledge gets from person to person, it offers nothing about understanding and depth of

understanding. Depth of understanding is a distinguishing characteristic of expertise in knowledge-

based, and productivity creativity presupposes expertise. The knowledge creation model has little to

say about the knowledge work. Although cooperation and teamwork are praised, the idea of

cooperating in the creation of knowledge never comes to life in Nonaka and Takeuchis theorizing.

The problem in the model is not so much missing concepts as missing perspectives on those

concepts. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 6)

Nonaka and Takeuchi treat knowledge as something that can only come about within the individual

mind. This is because that is where folk theory locates knowledge. Until there is a way for your co-

workers to get inside your brain and fiddle with the synapses, there is never going to be such a thing

as the collaborative creation of knowledge, according to folk understanding. But if you can

conceive of knowledge as consisting of conceptual artefacts, then you can imagine something like a

knowledge assembly line, with theories, designs, and so on moving along it, being worked on by

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

5/26

various people according to their various skills, and coming off the end as finished knowledge

products. (Bereiter, 2002.chapter 6)

1.2SIXKINDS OFPERSONAL KNOWLEDGE(BEREITER)In cognitive psychology a distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge and explicit

and implicit memory is supported with evidence. For a practical theory of mind, the issue is what

kinds of knowledge it is useful to distinguish. Practically speaking, how many kinds of knowledge

are worth distinguishing? Under the influence of cognitive science, the currently favored number is

two: knowing-that and knowing-how, better known in cognitive science circles as declarative and

procedural knowledge. In educational terms, therefore, there is a need to be able to distinguish two

kinds of knowledge at one stage of learning but also to hold as an objective that these two kinds of

knowledge will come together and form a third. The possibility of covering all knowledge by two

types does not, however, mean that we should do so. We can have as many kinds of knowledge as

we like. By an argument analogous to the one that explains why Eskimos need to distinguish many

kinds for snow, it can be maintained that educators and others who work extensively with

knowledge need to distinguish many kinds of knowledge. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 5)

Bereiter (2002) presents six kinds of personal knowledge: 1) statable, 2), implicit understanding, 3)

episodic knowledge, 4) impressionistic knowledge, 5) skill, and 6) regulative knowledge.

Statable Knowledge

Statable knowledge is knowledge that the knower can actually put into some explicit form usually

sentences, but possibly diagrams, etc. such that it can be conveyed, argued about, compared to

alternatives, and evaluated by others. It is part of what cognitive scientists refer to as declarative

knowledge. It is the explicit part. Statable knowledge can be discussed. Statable knowledge is

personal knowledge that we can objectify and thus bring into social processes of knowledge

building. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 5)

Implicit Understanding

Implicit understanding is knowledge gained from experience and it probably owes little or nothing

to formal education. Work on expert system, knowledge engineering, and expertise has led to a

heightened appreciation of the role for knowledge that people apparently have and use but cannot

state. Unstated, tacit, or implicit knowledge covers a very wide range, however. Implicit

understanding is not knowing thatthe world is round but seeing the world as round. Implicit

understanding is neither a skill nor knowledge you can find from books. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 5)

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

6/26

Episodic Knowledge

We cannot search our episodic knowledge systematically. Remembering one can help you recall the

other, but they are distinct. Remembered episodes can be retrieved and considered in new contexts.

I could be questioned whether memory for episodes in itself constitutes knowledge. Episodicmemory is raw material out of which knowledge may at times be constructed. One thing reminds us

of another, and most of the time the connections are superficial. Episodic knowledge would seem to

represent a great intellectual resource that is largely wasted. Episodic knowledge is not about

episodes and facts stored in the mind but about a mind with the ability to recall past experiences and

previously encountered facts, coupled with a disposition to do some spontaneously as well as under

conscious direction. What is recalled may amount to significant knowledge at some times and not at

others, but there can be little doubt that the recall of past experiences is an important part of

knowledge ability. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 5)

Impressionistic knowledge

Impressionistic knowledge is what we are left with after we have forgotten all the explicit content of

a great literary or artistic work. Beyond statable knowledge and beyond our more confidently held

implicit understandings lies a realm of feelings and impressions that also influence our actions. All

personal knowledge has an emotional aspect. What distinguishes impressionistic knowledge is that

the feelings are the knowledge. Feelings and impressions also constitute important knowledge in

circumstances where reason and evidence offer no guidance. Impressionistic knowledge is not

measurable and almost totally ignored in education. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 5)

Skill

Skill learning is ubiquitous. No matter what you do, if you do it repeatedly you will become more

skillful at it. Skills have both a cognitive and a subcognitive component, and it is worth

distinguishing them, even though they are closely intertwined. The cognitive part is the knowing-

how. The subcognitive part is the inevitable change in any skill that takes place with practice. The

performance becomes smoother, more automatic, and more economical of effort. The cognitive and

the subcognitive parts of skill learning can cooperate or they can get in each others way, which is

what makes skill learning an interesting challenge. Cooperation occurs when the automaticity

gained through practice frees up mental resources that enable you to think about what you are doing

while you are doing it. Skill is a form of knowledge, but that it depends on a body that also learns in

its own unknowing way. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 5)

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

7/26

Regulative Knowledge

The general idea is that in any realm of activity there is knowledge that pertains to yourself as a

factor in that activity. Regulative knowledge is knowledge of yourself, not only how you function in

the role but how to get yourself to function. It is knowledge of your own biases and shortcomingsand how to take proper account of and deal with these things. There is also regulative knowledge

that pertains to collective activity. Truth and objectivity are components of regulative knowledge.

Bereiter sees regulative knowledge as covering a very wide range, from explicit principles to

personal knowledge. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 5)

1.3KNOWLEDGE INKNOWLEDGEWORK(DAVIES&NAUMANN)

Knowledge is high-level, value-added information. Knowledge is not well defined because it is a

compound construct consisting of multiple dimensions. The Knowledge and expertise that

knowledge workers bring to activities for accomplishing a task have a significant impact on

selection and use. This knowledge consists of four types: 1) formal (declarative) knowledge, 2)

procedural knowledge, 3) meta knowledge, and 4) impressionistic knowledge. (Davies & Naumann,

1997. 14)

Formal (declarative) knowledge

Formal knowledge is general knowledge of problem solving and definitions, general principles,

concepts, and procedures related to a domain of work. It is the type of knowledge that is structured

and communicated by textbooks and courses. Formal or declarative knowledge of methods of

problem-solving is applicable to broad classes of problems. General problem-solving knowledge is

often knowledge of processes that help organize and transform data. Formal problem-solving

knowledge sometimes provides a basis for creativity because seemingly unrelated knowledge is

searched for analogies and insights. When these are found, new creative solutions may result.

(Davies & Naumann, 1997. 14-15)

Procedural knowledge

Procedural knowledge is knowledge about how to do something. It is more informal and not as

easily communicated by lecture or textbook. It is the ability to make effective and efficient use of

the most appropriate tools and techniques available. It tends to be associated with a specific domain

of work tasks or activities. Depending upon the knowledge work task, procedural knowledge may

be as simple as using a work processor or as complex as designing an integer programmingsolution. There is a connection between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge. When

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

8/26

declarative knowledge is used to solve a specific problem, the solution procedure becomes part of

the problem solvers procedural or informal knowledge. (Davies & Naumann, 1997. 15-16)

Meta knowledge

Meta knowledge is knowledge about knowledge. It concerns knowing how knowledge and

expertise are organized and how to locate and access the knowledge. It is knowing what you know

and dont know. Meta knowledge is developed by education, experience, and reflection.

(Davies & Naumann, 1997. 16)

Impressionistic knowledge

Although impressionistic knowledge is hidden in the sense that it is not formal and well structured,

it represents the sum total of experience. This helps a knowledge worker arrive at impressionswithout systematic consideration of formal problem solving. (Davies & Naumann, 1997. 16)

The development of expertise by knowledge workers involves solving progressively more

demanding and varied problems by applying declarative knowledge. This leads to the development

of procedural knowledge. The process is guided by the application of meta knowledge. Selection of

problems and goals is associated with impressionistic knowledge. (Davies & Naumann, 1997. 16)

1.4SUMMARYAll three approaches are overlapping and include similarities in types of knowledge. A model about

the similarities of the approaches is presented in figure 1. For example Nonakas tacit and explicit

can be placed under Bereiters six personnel knowledge. You cannot say that one is correct or not.

All three approaches are reasonable and usable in some sense. However Bereiters category is

deeper and more detailed. It provides specific perspectives to tacit knowledge and helps us to

separate different types of knowledge. Davies & Naumanns category is a certain kind of

generalization from Bereiters category.

Type of Knowledge

Nonaka Explicit Tacit

Bereiter Statable Skill Impressionistic

Knowledge

Regulative

Knowledge

Episodic

Knowledge

Implicit

Understanding

Davies

&Naumann

Declarative Procedural Impressionistic

Knowledge

Meta

Knowledge

Figure 1. A superficial model about the correspondence of different knowledge categories.

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

9/26

2 KNOWLEDGE WORK AND KNOWLEDGE WORKERSKnowledge work and knowledge workers can be defined in many ways. In this chapter several

different ways to define knowledge work and workers are presented.

2.1KNOWLEDGEWORKDEFINITIONSBereiter (2002) defines knowledge work:

Knowledge work belongs to the same class as metal work, woodworking, leather work, and

personnel work expect that object worked with are abstract: they are conceptual artifacts.

(Bereiter, 2002. chapter 6)

Conceptualmay be understood to refer to discussible ideas, ranging from theories, designs, and

plans down to concepts, like unemployment and gravity. Artifactconveys that these are human

creations and that they are created to some purpose. However, being conceptual, they are not

concrete artifacts. Conceptual artifacts share many of the characteristics of material artifacts.

Consider the concept of natural selection and how it compares to a material artifact like an

automobile: They both have origins and histories. They can be described. They can be compared

with other artifacts of their type. They may be valued or judged worthless. They have varied uses.

They may be modified and improved upon. They may be subjects of discussion. New attributes,

uses, or defects may be discovered that were not foreseen when they were created. People differ in

how well they understand them and in how skilful they are in using them. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter

3)

Davies (2002) defines knowledge work that it is inherently cognitive rather than physical. Examples

of outputs from knowledge work are analyses, evaluations, instructions, programs, plans,

assurances, reasoning or arguments, decisions, and action plans. In other words, knowledge work is

human mental work performed to generate useful information and knowledge. In doing the work,

knowledge workers access data, use knowledge, employ mental models, and apply significant

concentration and attention. Davies knowledge work model is presented in figure 2. (Davies, 2002.

68)

http://www.observetory.com/carlbereiter/chapter3.pdfhttp://www.observetory.com/carlbereiter/chapter3.pdf

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

10/26

Figure 2. Knowledge work. (Davies & Naumann, 1997. 9 & Davies, 2002. 68)

With Bereiters knowledge work definition one problem can be raised: For example if you are

working with combustion engine to improve horse power, are you working with concrete artifact or

conceptual artifact, in other words, are you working with concrete engine or conceptual horse

power? Davies definition relies on the input, output and methods. Key factor in the definition is the

output the product of the knowledge work, which is useful information or knowledge.

2.2KNOWLEDGEWORKER DEFINITIONSWare & Degoey (1998) say that there are very little understanding how knowledge workers actually

use information technology, or how information technology impacts knowledge worker

performance and productivity. Knowledge work itself is poorly understood. There are many

different kinds of tasks that are loosely called knowledge work. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

Bereiter (2002) defines knowledge worker:

Knowledge workers create, improve, find new uses for, or otherwise add value to conceptual

artifacts.

The skills and other kinds of knowledge needed in knowledge work depends a great deal on whatparticular kinds of conceptual artifacts are dealt with. (Bereiter, 2002. chapter 6)

Knowledge

Concentration

and attention

Data

Mental Models

Useful output

with information

and knowledge

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

11/26

Blom (2000) provides very different and on the other hand clear criteria for knowledge worker:

Knowledge workers are those wageworkers who: 1) use information technologyin work, 2) whose

work demandsplanning or creativity, and 3) who have at least higher immediate school degree.

(Blom, 2000. 423)

Despres & Hiltrop define knowledge worker:

Knowledge workers manipulate and orchestrate symbols and concepts, identify more

strongly with their peers and professions than their organizations, have more rapid skill

obsolescence and are more critical to the long-term success of the organization. (Despres &

Hiltrop, 1995. 13)

Collins (1998) claims that:

No matter what we do we are all, in some form or other, knowledge workers. To accomplish

even the simplest of tasks requires some kind of working knowledge, acquired both formally

and informally from supervisors, friends and co-workers. (Collins, 1998)

Knowledge work typically entails the interpretation and manipulation of information, rather than

relatively routine data collection and processing. Knowledge work entails an enormously diverse set

of tasks and jobs. However, Ware & Degoey suggest two ideal type categories of knowledge

workers: Knowledge executorsand knowledge generators. This classification is illustrated in

figure 3. Knowledge executors are those workers who handle existing knowledge by manipulating

information through processes created or invented by others. Knowledge generators create new

knowledge by manipulating information in such a way as to develop new solutions to a given

problem, or to create new concepts or products. All knowledge work entails both kinds of activities.

Some jobs entail more knowledge execution than knowledge generation. Examples of workers who

predominately engage in knowledge execution activities are customer support technicians and loan

officers. Examples of workers who engage mostly in knowledge generation activities include

marketing strategists and product design engineers. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

12/26

Figure 3. Knowledge Workers: Some Critical dimensions. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

Ware & Degoey do no pay attention to the creation of tacit knowledge. Both idealistic types of

knowledge workers produce artifacts of explicit knowledge. The use of personnel and

organizational tacit knowledge is limited. Types seem to be a little too idealistic and unnatural.

The category does not do much in classifying or in description of knowledge worker.

There are also estimations about the cultural aspect in defining knowledge and knowledge work.

Yau (2003) founds out that knowledge work is not culturally defined. However she still intuitively

believes that it is.

2.3CONCLUSIONSPresented definitions provide a large range to knowledge work and knowledge worker. It is obvious

that chosen definition has a huge influence on latter research. One major question is: what is

important in the defining the knowledge worker? Are the characteristics of the input, process,

outcome or all of them that essential in the definition of the knowledge work and worker?

Knowledge ExecutorsClaims Adjusters

Customer Service Reps

Knowledge GeneratorsProduct Engineers

Strategists

transaction of information reliance on routines link explicit to explicit

knowledge

re-occuring tasks bounded complexity of tasks

transformation of information reliance on

creativity/imagination

change tacit into explicitknowledge

highly varied tasks high complexity of tasks

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

13/26

3 KNOWLEDGE WORK TASKS AND ACTIVITIESThe definition of knowledge work tasks and activities depends on the definitions of knowledge and

knowledge work. There are not so many definitions about knowledge work tasks as there exist

definitions about actual knowledge work.

3.1KNOWLEDGEWORKTASKS ANDACTIVITIES(DAVIES)Davies (2002) divides knowledge work tasks under three titles: 1) job-specific, 2) knowledge-

building and maintenance, and 3) work management. (Davies, 2002. 68)

Job-specific tasks.

Every knowledge worker has job-specific tasks that produce outputs of value to the organization.

Examples are preparing a budget, analyzing results in terms of estimated and actual costs, planning

and scheduling a project, eliciting and documenting system requirements, and writing applications

software. (Davies, 2002. 68)

Knowledge-building and maintenance tasks.

Knowledge workers are valued for their knowledge and expertise, but this will decay over time.

Therefore, knowledge workers need to engage in frequent knowledge building and knowledge

maintenance. Examples of this second type of knowledge work tasks are scanning and reading

professional literature, attending professional meetings, learning new systems and technologies, and

building a network of colleagues. (Davies, 2002. 68)

Work management tasks.

When knowledge workers engage in tasks directed toward organizational objectives, they must

usually plan the set of activities required to produce the desired outcomes. Examples of work

management tasks are planning and scheduling work, allocating time and attention, and acquiring

access to resources that enable effective work. A productive work environment requires setup,

operation, maintenance, and protection of information infrastructure, files, and applications.

(Davies, 2002. 68; Davies & Naumann 1997, 76)

Davies (2002) says: A knowledge worker's dominant activities in terms of time, energy, or intensity

are knowledge work. Examples are systems analysts, programmers, accountants, managers,

analysts, and lawyers. Work may be done individually, in groups, or in teams. Knowledge workers

may engage in some clerical activitiesin performing knowledge work. Knowledge workers are

expected to possess formal knowledge consisting of general principles, concepts, and procedures

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

14/26

related to classes of problems and domains of work. They also have some procedural knowledge

about typical procedures, forms, and rules governing a domain of work. (Davies, 2002. 68)

Every task requires a set of activities that must be organized and sequenced. Most tasks can be

characterized by one or a few predominant knowledge work activities. These activities apply to all

types of tasks. For the purpose of managing knowledge work, 14 knowledge work activities have

been classified into four major groups: 1) acquiring knowledge, 2) designing, 3) making decisions,

and 4) communicating. These activities may be part of an individual project or may be integrated

into collaborative work with colleagues or teams. Figure 4 illustrates knowledge workers activities.

(Davies & Naumann, 1997. 78)

Figure 4. Four types of knowledge work activities. (Davies & Naumann, 1997. 78)

Acquiring knowledge

Scanning is an awareness activity. The knowledge worker pays attention to various media and

sources to identify and obtain information for knowledge work tasks. For example, scanning may be

associated with a job-specific task or with a knowledge-building and maintenance task. Scanning

can identify new information sources. Monitoring-reviewing sources expected to contain relevant

information-tends to be a more specific activity than scanning. For example, a manager may

monitor assigned activities by reviewing regular reports, but scan other documents to increase

awareness and identify problems that might not be found in the structure report. Searching is a very

specific acquisition activity. The knowledge objective is defined and the knowledge worker must

decide where to search and how to find the appropriate information. The search activity is

Acquiring

Knowledge

Scan Monitor Search

Designing

Model Plan Organize Schedule

Author

Making

Decisions

Formulate Analyze Choose

Communicating

Present Persuade Motivate

KNOWLEDGE WORK ACTIVITIES

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

15/26

characterized by known information objectives and unknown sources. (Davies & Naumann, 1997.

78-79)

Designing

A model is an abstraction of a physical object or a process. It can be visualization, a diagram or

char, or a mathematical or program representation. Many products of knowledge work require that

models be constructed either as an output or to guide the knowledge work task. At some level,

almost all design involves representation and modeling. Planning involves generating alternatives.

Selected options must be sequenced and resource implications analyzed. Planning helps knowledge

workers identify a set of tasks that must be accomplished in a particular order. Organizing involves

identifying and arranging the resources necessary to complete a plan and defining responsibilities.

Scheduling associates planned activities with available resources. The schedule specifies when each

activity is to begin and when it should be completed. It identifies the person or organization

responsible for each. Authoring is creating an output in the form of a document, presentation,

procedure, or program. Documents can be created in various formats, such as reports, analyses,

memoranda, or minutes. Almost every knowledge work output involves some authoring. The result

of authoring can include text, graphics, multimedia presentations, flowcharts, or programs. (Davies

& Naumann, 1997. 79)

Making Decisions

Formulating involves defining a problem correctly and completely. It includes recognizing

symptoms that suggest a problem and distinguishing between real and apparent problems.

Analyzing involves enumerating and evaluating alternatives. The analysis may be both quantitative

and qualitative. Choosing involves selecting from alternatives according to some criteria. There

may be a single criterion or multiple criteria. (Davies & Naumann, 1997. 80)

Communicating

Presenting involves delivering and transferring information. Delivery can take a variety of forms.

These include printed reports, electronic messages, files sent to others, multimedia computer

presentations, and oral presentations. Persuading involves chancing the beliefs of others. It may

include presenting information organized with arguments and lines of reasoning to persuade the

receiver. Motivating people means energizing other to action. Although it may include both

presenting and persuading communicating, additional elements are often included. (Davies &

Naumann, 1997. 81

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

16/26

3.2KNOWLEDGEWORKACTIVITIES(WARE&DEGOEY)Based on literature, Ware & Degoey suggest that knowledge workers engage in acquisition, storage,

interpretation, and dissemination of information. Figure 5 illustrates a model of knowledge worker

activity based on these four core tasks. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

Figure 5. Knowledge Work: Information Processing Tasks and Behaviors. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

Information acquisition

Knowledge workers can gather information from a wide variety of sources, for instance, from

readings, interactions with customers, companys databases or the Internet. Professional workers

often maintain network connections to peers. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

Information storage

This task involves storing and organizing the acquired information. Information may be stored in

written notes or documents, in electronic databases, or it may be maintained within personal

memory. By communicating acquired information to others, information can also become stored

in collective memory. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

Information Interpretation

Information interpretation is the most critical step in the knowledge execution/generation process; itinvolves combining, analyzing, and synthesizing available information, often linking it to other

Information

processing

Disseminate

Acquire

Store

Interpret

search ask select read listen view

speak write draw file index memorize

speak write display send broadcast teach

analyze synthesize link/relate choose decide plan

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

17/26

facts of data, as well as placing it in a larger context. Interpretation is at the heart of the knowledge

generation process. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

Information Dissemination

Some knowledge workers may communicate their interpretation of a given problem or their

decisions only to a customer or supervisor, while others may be responsible for championing or

publicly defending their interpretations and views. Workers can use a wide variety of

communication modes such as email and other electronic channels, printed text and graphics, and

all forms of oral communication to disseminate information. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

The social natureof knowledge worker activity can also be examined. Some knowledge workers

engage in information processing in team contexts, while others conduct their work mostly

individually. In many cases, the same job may be carried out very differently by different

individuals or groups. Individual differences in personal style, preferences, and skills as well as

various environmental factors also affect the information processing strategies knowledge workers

use. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

18/26

3.3SUMMARYExamined models about knowledge work tasks and activities are quite similar. Similarities between

these two knowledge work activity models are illustrated in figure 6.

Activities

Davies &

Naumann

Acquire

scan monitor search

Designing

model plan organize schedule author

Making Decisions formulate analyze choose

Communicating

present persuade motivate

Ware & DegoeyAcquire

search ask select read listen view

Store

speak write draw file index memorize

Interpret

analyze synthesize link/relate choose decide plan

Disseminate

speak write display send broadcast teach

CombinationAcquire

Scan Monitor Search Select

Store

Author Organize File

Interpret & Design

Formulate &model

Analyze Synthesize Plan Choose Schedule Decide

Communicating

Present Persuade Motivate Teach

Figure 6. Knowledge work activities.

4 KNOWLEDGE WORK PRODUCTIVITYThis chapter presents answers to the question: what is knowledge work productivity and how it can

be measured? Perspectives to knowledge work productivity and possibilities to measure the

productivity are presented.

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

19/26

4.1DIFFICULTIES WITHMEASURINGKNOWLEDGEWORK(WARE&DEGOEY)

The extant literature cites several reasons for the difficulty of measuring knowledge worker

performance. First, it is often difficult to correctly quantity the outputor contributions of these typesof workers. Second, because the outcomes of projects in which knowledge workers participate often

take many months or even years to materialize, it is often virtually impossible to match inputs to

outputs within a given time-frame. Third, knowledge workers frequently have considerable

discretion over how they conduct their tasks, and there often are many different ways to be

successful or productive. Fourth, because projects in which knowledge workers engage frequently

involve a substantial number of people, it is often difficult to attribute results to the contributions

made by any one individual or even a team. Finally, a related issue is that knowledge workers tend

to dislike and resist being measured. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

4.2PROPOSALS FOR MEASURINGKNOWLEDGEWORKPRODUCTIVITY(WARE&DEGOEY)

The measuring of knowledge workshould be contextual. Factors such as organizational and

professional goals and norms must largely determine which types of measures are most important in

assessing the performance of any specific group of knowledge workers. It is also important to take

into account the career stages of knowledge workers. Skills and capabilities that an organization

values in a specific group of knowledge workers may depend very much on the broader roles that

those workers play in the overall management of the organization, not just in how they carry out

their operational knowledge work tasks. It is also important to acknowledge that almost all work

contains both quantitative and qualitative elements, and hence, that measurement should address

both of these elements. Figures 7 and 8 list some examples of quantitative and qualitative

productivity measures. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

20/26

Figure 7. Some Quantitative Measures of Performance. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

Figure 8. Some Qualitative Measures of Performance. (Ware & Degoey, 1998)

4.3PRODUCTIVITY INKNOWLEDGEWORK(DAVIES)There are very large differences in productivity among knowledge workers. For example, using

typical measures of performance, productivity of the best performing systems analysts and

programmers can range up to three or more times that of the lowest performers (who are productive

enough to be retained in their positions). This high ratio is not usually found in production work andclerical work because the organization provides work routines that reduce wasted time and effort

Marketing Engineering Customer Service

number of proposals

preparation hours

orders received

no. of employees

revenue

advertising costs

hours of design

hours of rework

field correction costs

design team

design experience

actual hours

orders processed

total hours

phone calls

no. of days

errors

no. of days

QUANTITATIVE MEASURES

client satisfaction project success innovativeness handling of crisis

situations

job involvement/

meeting deadlines lack of surprises transferability of work collaboration with

others

adaptability to change

QUALITATIVE MEASURES

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

21/26

and establish an expected pace for the work. In knowledge work, there may be some organization

standards and procedures, such as deadlines for reports, requirements for evidence of progress, and

expectations about outputs. These factors provide some incentives for work completion, but quality

of work and timely completion depend largely on self-management and self-pacing. (Davies, 2002.

68-69)

The most productive knowledge workers tend to employ the most efficient work flow and work

methods. More important, they tend to be better at managing the use of their time, attention, and

motivation.Knowledge work productivity depends on good self-management. For example, a very

productive knowledge worker will schedule for productivity (schedule important, high-productivity

work activities to occur during times of high energy and attention), schedule for motivation (create

motivation by frequent, short-term deadlines), and manage demands for attention (because aknowledge worker has limited attention resources and an oversupply of inputs to process). (Davies,

2002. 68-69)

The value of unlimited computing access may depend on the knowledge work tasks. Knowledge

workers whose tasks involve obtaining data from a variety of locations, activities, and people (such

as a scheduler of production activities) are likely to benefit from anytime/anyplace computing and

communications facilities. Less-certain benefits may be achieved if the knowledge work being

performed is dependent on concentrated effort without interruptions. (Davies, 2002. 68-69)

4.4KNOWLEDGEWORKER CONSTRAINTS IN THEPRODUCTIVEUSE OFINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY(IT)(DRURY&FARHOOMAND)

Productivity in economic terms is the quantity of output divided by the quantity of inputs.

Effectiveness is when a goal, objective, or target is met and efficiency, the degree to which inputs

are used in relation to a given level of outputs. Effectiveness consists of doing the right things and

efficiency of doing things right. (Drury & Farhoomand, 1999. 22)

Drury & Farhoomand (1999) have made empirical research with questionnaire to find out

knowledge workers thoughts about knowledge work constraints and ideas to reduce these

constraints. They present four main constraints issues (technical issues, information issues,

infrastructure issues and task issues), which prevent knowledge worker to improve productivity

with IT. Technical issues such as speed of the hardware, frequency of down time, flexibility of

computer systems, and the cost of the hardware could discourage use of computers in improving

productivity.Information issues include: difficulty in identifying relevant sources of information,

information overload and language barriers. One area of issues arises from organization

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

22/26

infrastructure. Organization can prevent successful IT implementation with a lack of top

management support and organizational resources. The nature oftaskhas been found to affect IT

utilization. The domain of knowledge workers is semi or unstructured tasks. These tasks are

undertaken at irregular intervals and tend to be creatively confronted each time they arise due to

their complexity. This makes the effective utilization of IT difficult to achieve. However, most of

the constraints to IT seem to have a psychological basis. Attitudes towards working with computers

directly affect the level of computer usage. (Drury & Farhoomand, 1999. 23-26)

In the research Drury & Farhoomand found that the primary area of constraints is infrastructure,

followed by technical issues and information issues. Task issues are relatively minor constraints.

One extra issue was identified: systems cost which is an important problem, especially in small to

medium companies. The most common constraints were: lack of training, technical infrastructure,technical support, top management support, system breakdown, speed, information format,

information accessibility, information quality and information overload. (Drury & Farhoomand,

1999. 29-30)

Knowledge worker primary solution to reduce constraints of IT infrastructure was better quality

trainingto reduce the level of user illiteracy. Other solutions for IT infrastructure were:

managements attitude, IT strategy, add IT people, outsourcing, restructure IT team, resources and

organization structure review & study, culture of change, consultancy and communication user &IT. Solutions for technical issues were: hardware upgrade, technical support, resources, backup

and system monitoring standardization and outsourcing. Solutions for information issues were:

information standardization, system administration, user involvement, networking, information

training and information management team. And solutions for task issues were: task training,

understand end users needs, users participation, select system, request analysis, upgrading and re-

engineering. (Drury & Farhoomand, 1999. 32-35)

4.5SUMMARYThere are several reasons for the difficulty o f measuring knowledge worker performance. The

measuring of knowledge work should be contextual. Organizations objectives set up rules for the

quality of the knowledge work products. Knowledge work productivity should be evaluated with

the objectives of the certain knowledge worker. General evaluation criteria are hard to establish.

Knowledge work productivity seems also to depend on good self-management.

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

23/26

5 KNOWLEDGE COMMUNICATION AND KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT TOOLS

In this chapter some concepts related to knowledge communication and personnel knowledge

management are examined. The purpose of this chapter is not to give definitions about subjects

just to present them.

5.1PERSONAL KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT(FRAND &HIXON)Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) attempts to utilize the computer to help the individual

manage the information explosion in a meaningful way. Personal knowledge management is a

system designed by individuals for their own personal use. Knowledge management has been

described as a systematic attempt to create, gather, distribute, and use knowledge. PKM is a

conceptual framework to organize and integrate information that we, as individuals, feel is

important so that it becomes part for our personal knowledge base. Knowledge management is built

on information management. (Frand & Hixon, 1999)

Frand & Hixon (1999) present following knowledge management principles: 1) searching/finding,

2) categorizing/classifying, 3) naming things/making distinctions, 4) evaluating/assessing, and 5)

integrating or relating. (Frand & Hixon, 1999)

5.2KNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENTTOOLS(DINGSYR &RYRVIK)

With tools of knowledge management Dingsyr and Ryrvik mean tools that have several users,

and tools that are widely available for employees in an organization. These tools can usually be

called intranet tools that support knowledge management in at least three ways: 1) Providing

compression of time and space among the users 2) Offering the flexibility to exchange information,

and 3) Supporting information transfer and organizational networking independent of direct

contracts between the users. (Dingsyr & Ryrvik, 2003. 84)

There are many dimensions for describing knowledge management tools:

Knowledge codification tools to make knowledge available for others. Knowledge transferringtools to decrease problems with time and space. Active tools that notify users when it is likely, that users require some kind of knowledge. Passive tools require a user to actively seek knowledge without any system support. Knowledge repositories and libraries tools for handling repositories of knowledge inthe form of documents.

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

24/26

Communities of knowledge workers tools to support communities of practice in work;like organizing workspaces for communities for online discussions and distributed work.

Knowledge cartography tools for mapping and categorizing knowledge, for corecompetence in a company to individual expertise; what we can refer to as

metaknowledge.

The flow of knowledge tools for supporting the interaction between tacit knowledge,explicit knowledge and metaknowledge; that is, that combines the three parts above.

(Dingsyr & Ryrvik, 2003. 84-85)

5.3KNOWLEDGEWORKERSSOFTWARE(DAVIES)To perform the activities commonly associated with knowledge work tasks, knowledge workers

should have a working knowledge of several software packages. These include a word processing

program, plus six other packages: 1) a spreadsheet processor, 2) electronic mail and Internet, 3)presentation graphics, 4) statistics, 5) a database package for structured data, and 6) a database

package for structured data, and 6) a database package for unstructured, text data. (Davies &

Naumann, 1997. 10)

5.4SUMMARYPKM and knowledge communication tools can be seen as a part of knowledge work tools. However

PKM and knowledge communication tools are not enough in categorizing knowledge work tools.

The categorization of knowledge work tools depends on the chosen knowledge work definition.

6 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONSThe way knowledge is seen influences on knowledge work and tools definitions. The way

knowledge work is defined has a huge influence on research concerning the subject. Knowledge

and knowledge work definitions can be quite universal. Context is important in measuring

productivity of knowledge work and in choosing tools for knowledge worker.

Based on existing literature, knowledge work activities can be identified and supported with

information technology, but some part of knowledge work is hard to support with information

technology.

Davies provides a whole package about knowledge work with explicit definitions, descriptions

and guidelines.

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

25/26

REFERENCES

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age. Available at:

http://www.observetory.com/carlbereiter/[Site accessed 12.9.2003]

Blom, R. (2000). Tietotyn lumo ja raliteetit. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka. Vo 65. No 5, 2000. (pp.

422-433. Available at: http://www.stakes.fi/yp/pdf/2000/yp500.pdf[Site accessed 17.9.2003]

Collins, D. 1998. Knowledge work or Working Knowledge? Ambiguity and Confusion in

the Analysis of the Knowledge Age. Journal of Systemic Knowledge Management. Available at:

http://www.tlainc.com/article7.htm [Site accessed 18.9.2003]

Davies, G. & Naumann, D. (1997). Personal Productivity with Information Technology. The

McGraw-Hill companies, Inc. USA.

Davies, G. (2002). Anytime/anyplace computing and the future of knowledge work.

Communications of the ACM. Vo 45. No 12, 2002. (pp 67-73)

Dingsyr T. & Ryrvik E. (2003). An empirical study of an informal knowledge repository

in a medium-sized software consulting company. Proceedings of the 25th international conference

on Software engineering. pp. 84-92. Available at: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/780000/776827/p84-

dingsoyr.pdf?key1=776827&key2=0465834601&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=11714276&CFTOKEN=1

4299846[Site accessed 29.9.2003]Drury, D. & Farhoomand, A. (1999). Knowledge Worker Constraints in the Productive Use

of Infromation Technology. ACM SIGCPR Computer Personnel. Vo19/20. Issue 4/1, spring 1999.

(pp. 2142) Available at: http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/570000/568500/p21-

farhoomand.pdf?key1=568500&key2=0798299601&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=14421677&CFTOKEN=

14376196 [Site accessed 27.11.2003]

Frand, J. & Hixon, C. (1999). Personal Knowledge Management: Who, What, Why, When,

Where, How? Available at:

http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/jason.frand/researcher/speeches/PKM.htm [Site accessed

18.9.2003]

Marwick, A. (2001). Knowledge management technology. IBM systems journal. Vo 40. No

4, 2001. (pp. 814, 830) Available at: http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/marwick.html [Site

accessed 12.9.2003]

http://www.observetory.com/carlbereiter/http://www.stakes.fi/yp/pdf/2000/yp500.pdfhttp://www.tlainc.com/article7.htmhttp://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/780000/776827/p84-dingsoyr.pdf?key1=776827&key2=0465834601&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=11714276&CFTOKEN=14299846http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/780000/776827/p84-dingsoyr.pdf?key1=776827&key2=0465834601&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=11714276&CFTOKEN=14299846http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/780000/776827/p84-dingsoyr.pdf?key1=776827&key2=0465834601&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=11714276&CFTOKEN=14299846http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/780000/776827/p84-dingsoyr.pdf?key1=776827&key2=0465834601&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=11714276&CFTOKEN=14299846http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/570000/568500/p21-farhoomand.pdf?key1=568500&key2=0798299601&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=14421677&CFTOKEN=14376196http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/570000/568500/p21-farhoomand.pdf?key1=568500&key2=0798299601&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=14421677&CFTOKEN=14376196http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/570000/568500/p21-farhoomand.pdf?key1=568500&key2=0798299601&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=14421677&CFTOKEN=14376196http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/jason.frand/researcher/speeches/PKM.htmhttp://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/marwick.htmlhttp://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/marwick.htmlhttp://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/jason.frand/researcher/speeches/PKM.htmhttp://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/570000/568500/p21-farhoomand.pdf?key1=568500&key2=0798299601&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=14421677&CFTOKEN=14376196http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/570000/568500/p21-farhoomand.pdf?key1=568500&key2=0798299601&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=14421677&CFTOKEN=14376196http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/570000/568500/p21-farhoomand.pdf?key1=568500&key2=0798299601&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=14421677&CFTOKEN=14376196http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/780000/776827/p84-dingsoyr.pdf?key1=776827&key2=0465834601&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=11714276&CFTOKEN=14299846http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/780000/776827/p84-dingsoyr.pdf?key1=776827&key2=0465834601&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=11714276&CFTOKEN=14299846http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/780000/776827/p84-dingsoyr.pdf?key1=776827&key2=0465834601&coll=GUIDE&dl=ACM&CFID=11714276&CFTOKEN=14299846http://www.tlainc.com/article7.htmhttp://www.stakes.fi/yp/pdf/2000/yp500.pdfhttp://www.observetory.com/carlbereiter/

7/28/2019 10.1.1.102.670.pdf

26/26

Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization

Science. Vo. 5, No. 1, 1994. (pp. 14-37)

Yau; J. (2003). Defining Knowledge Work. A British and Hispanic Cross-Cultural Study.

Available at: http://www-

users.cs.york.ac.uk/~kimble/teaching/students/Jennifer_Yau/Defining_Knowledge_Work.pdf[Site

accessed 12.9.2003]

Ware, J. & Degoey, P. (1998). Knowledge Work and Information Technology. Avalable at:

http://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/citm/publications/papers/wp-1028.pdf[Site accessed 15.9.2003]

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~kimble/teaching/students/Jennifer_Yau/Defining_Knowledge_Work.pdfhttp://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~kimble/teaching/students/Jennifer_Yau/Defining_Knowledge_Work.pdfhttp://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/citm/publications/papers/wp-1028.pdfhttp://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/citm/publications/papers/wp-1028.pdfhttp://groups.haas.berkeley.edu/citm/publications/papers/wp-1028.pdfhttp://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~kimble/teaching/students/Jennifer_Yau/Defining_Knowledge_Work.pdfhttp://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~kimble/teaching/students/Jennifer_Yau/Defining_Knowledge_Work.pdf