The Map and the Territory: A Practitioner Perspective on Knowledge Cartography

Chapter
Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)

Abstract

This chapter provides a practical perspective of knowledge cartography by drawing on an approach that has been developed and refined through the lead author’s experiences in facilitating workshops in diverse professional domains. The discussion focuses on the importance of developing a feel for conversational patterns and for understanding the kinds of questions that enable insights to emerge from dialogue, leading to an emergent design approach that combines the methods of knowledge cartography with other facilitation and problem solving techniques in a “fit-for-situation” manner.

References

  1. Argyris, C., and Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Public Service Commission (2007). Tackling wicked problems: a public policy perspective. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Available online at: http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/archive/publications-archive/tackling-wicked-problems (Accessed 20 January 2014).
  3. Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., & Finn, C. B. (2004). Visible thinking: Unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Buzan, T. (2002). How to Mind Map, London: Thorsons (Harper-Collins) UK.Google Scholar
  5. Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Chichester, Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Buckingham Shum, S., Slack, R., Daw, M., Juby, B., Rowley, A., Bachler, M., Mancini, C., Michaelides, D., Procter, R., De Roure, D., Chown, T., and Hewitt, T. (2006). Memetic: An Infrastructure for Meeting Memory. In: 7th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 09–12 May 2006, Carry-le-Rouet, France. Open Access Eprint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/23373
  7. Culmsee, P. and Awati, K. (2013). The Heretic’s Guide to Best Practices. Indianapolis, iUniverse.Google Scholar
  8. Harmon, P. (2003). Business process change: A manager’s guide to improving, redesigning and automating processes. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  9. Huettel, S. A., Stowe, C. J., Gordon, E. M., Warner, B. T., & Platt, M. L. (2006). Neural signatures of economic preferences for risk and ambiguity. Neuron, 49(5), 765–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kay, J. (2011). Obliquity: Why our goals are best achieved indirectly, London, Profile Books.Google Scholar
  11. Korzybski, A. (1958). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics. Institute of General Semantics.Google Scholar
  12. Kruger, J. and Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(6), 1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee, J. (1989). Decision Representation Language (DRL) and its Support Environment,. Working Paper No. 325, MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Mackay, H. (2010), What Makes Us Tick: The Ten Desires That Drive Humans, Sydney, New South Wales: Hachette Australia.Google Scholar
  15. MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V. and Moran, T. (1991). Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6, pp 201–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Niven, P. (2006). Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  18. Owen, H. (2008). Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kohler Publishers.Google Scholar
  19. Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management science, 29(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Roam, D. (2008), The Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures, London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  23. Schar, M. (2011). Pivot thinking and the differential sharing of information within new product development teams. Ph. D. Thesis, Stanford University. Available online at: https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:dz361xm2614/Schar%20Pivot%20Thinking%20August%202011%20submitted-augmented.pdf (Accessed 20 January 2014).
  24. Selvin, A.M. (1999). Supporting Collaborative Analysis and Design with Hypertext Functionality. Journal of Digital Information, Vol. 1, (4). Available at: <http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/16>. Date accessed: 06 Feb. 2014.
  25. Sieloff, C. G. (1999). “If only HP knew what HP knows”: the roots of knowledge management at Hewlett-Packard. Journal of Knowledge management, 3(1), 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suzuki, S. (2011). Zen mind, beginner’s mind. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Wastell, D. G. (1996). The fetish of technique: methodology as a social defence. Information systems journal, 6(1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Seven Sigma Business SolutionsPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Boehringer Ingelheim Pte Ltd.KallangSingapore

Personalised recommendations