Advertisement

PMI: Knowledge elicitation and De Bono's thinking tools

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 599)

Abstract

Much attention in knowledge acquisition has been directed at the question “What is Knowledge?”. In this paper, we discuss a related question, which we consider to be of equal importance, namely “What is Thinking?”. We present a definition of thinking that emphasizes the importance of arriving at new arrangements of knowledge, and discuss how having knowledge about something can be used to avoid thinking. Given this view, it is clear that stimulating an expert to think about the domain can provide more detailed knowledge about both the domain and about the expert himself. We have taken one of De Bono's thinking tools, the PMI (plus-minus-interesting) and built a knowledge elicitation tool for use in a domain where the expert's responses are likely to be based on unquestioned judgements. The tool requires the expert to think about the domain in ways that he is perhaps not used to, and the information elicited from this exercise gives an insight into the judgement policies of the expert. This, in turn, is of use when applying the knowledge, particularly where the resolution of conflicts becomes necessary.

Keywords

Conflict Resolution Knowledge Acquisition Conceptual System Knowledge Engineer Minus Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boose, J. H. (1989) A survey of Knowledge Acquisition Techniques and Tools, Knowledge Acquisition: An International Journal, Vol 1, No 1, pp3–38.Google Scholar
  2. De Bono, E. (1985) De Bono's Thinking Course, London: Ariel Books.Google Scholar
  3. De Bono, E. (1988) Letters to Thinkers: Further Thoughts on Lateral Thinking, London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  4. Du Boulay, B., and Ross, P. (1991) booknotes for MSc Intelligent Tutoring Systems, School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  5. Brenner, M. (1982) “Response Effects of ‘Role-restricted’ Characteristics of the Interviewer”, in W. Dijkstra and J. Van der Zouwen, eds., Response Behaviour in the Survey Interview, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. DeLamater, J. (1982) “Response-effects of Question Content”, in W. Dijkstra and J. van der Zouwen, eds., Response Behaviour in the Survey Interview, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Easterbrook, S. M., (1991) “Handling Conflict Between Domain Descriptions with Computer-Supported Negotiation”, Knowledge Acquisition: An International Journal, Vol 3, pp 255–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gammack, J. G. & Young, R. M. (1985) “Psychological Techniques for Eliciting Expert Knowledge”, in M. A. Bramer, ed., Research and Development in Expert Systems, British Computer Society Workshop Series, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Greenwell, M. (1990) “Knowledge Elicitation: principles and practice” in M. F. McTear and T. J. Anderson, eds., Understanding Knowledge Engineering, Chichester: Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  10. Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  11. LaFrance, M. (1988) “The Knowledge Acquisition Grid: a method for training knowledge engineers”, in B. Gaines and J. Boose, eds, Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems, Vol. 1, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Molenaar, N. J., (1982) “Response-effects of ‘Formal’ Characteristics of Questions”, in W. Dijkstra and J. Van der Zouwen, Response Behaviour in the Survey Interview, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Regoczei, S. and Plantinga, E.P.O. (1988) “Ontology and Inventory”, in B. Gaines and J. Boose, eds, Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge Based Systems, Vol. 2, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Shaw, M. L. G. (1980) On Becoming A Personal Scientist, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Shaw, M. L. G. (1981) “Conversational Heuristics for Eliciting Shared Understanding”, in M. L. G. Shaw, ed., Recent Advances in Personal Construct Technology, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Shaw, M. L. G., and Gaines, B. R. (1988) “A Methodology for Recognising Consensus, Correspondence, Conflict and Contrast in a Knowledge Acquisition System”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems, Banff, Nov. 7–11.Google Scholar
  17. Wittgenstein, L., (1984) Ueber Gewissheit, Eds. G.E.M. Anscombe & G.H. von Wright, Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Winograd, T., and Flores, F., (1986) Understanding Computers and Cognition, Reading MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Cognitive and Computing SciencesUniversity of Sussex FalmerBrighton

Personalised recommendations