Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Knowledge Aquisition Process Planning
Knowledge Aquisition Process Planning
K Venkateshwaran
20071D0403
CAD/CAM
Mechanical Department
VNRVJIET.
CH Priyadarshini
Assistant Professor
Mechanical Department
VNRVJIET
INTRODUCTION
The knowledge acquisition and management process are intended as one possible
approach. It emphasizes personal responsibility for and ownership of knowledge
resources by the individuals who will use those resources (Kim & Mauborgne,
1997). It includes a variety of opportunities to quantitatively monitor the success of
the process, and to pinpoint areas for improvement.
There are three roles currently identified in this process. Multiple individuals may
act in each role; conversely, one individual may act in multiple roles. The roles are:
Knowledge Steward: The knowledge steward acts as the gatekeeper for the
knowledge base. They are responsible for taking the knowledge concept,
determining whether the knowledge is new, redundant, or a
modification/upgrade/extension of existing knowledge, and completing the
specification of what needs to be added to the system. The knowledge
steward is also responsible for re-examining the process on a regular basis,
identifying and building in support for new knowledge types, and ensuring
that the process is working successfully. The knowledge steward serves as
the "day to day" process owner.
The Process Definition describes these roles and their interactions in more detail.
PROCESS DEFINITION
Process Input
The input to the process is any knowledge concept. Using the rather vague
term concept is deliberate; the goal is to be as inclusive as possible, permitting the
specification of any knowledge that may be useful to the organization. The most
common forms for knowledge in most organizations are in documentation (printed
or on-line), computer code, and in the minds of employees.
As the process matures, and tools to automate process flow are developed to
support the process, more formal criteria for judging knowledge concepts emerge.
Process Tasks
The process flowchart in Figure 1 defines and documents the proposed process.
The chart also captures the relationships between the roles defined above (initiator,
steward, implementor) and specific task
s.
Validate Request. The criteria for whether a knowledge concept should be further
developed include:
For each of the above data items, points should be assigned (e.g., if the problem
addressed results in a system coming down to 0-20% of normal functionality,
assign 100 points; if the problem results only in a slowdown to 81-99% of normal
functionality, assign 0 points). As a result, each knowledge concept will have its
own unique score.
The rate of rejection should be monitored closely. A high rate may indicate
routinely inadequate specifications, in which case process adjustments may be
necessary.
The plan is placed in a location accessible to both the initiator and the knowledge
steward, for review. Should the process be supported by a trouble ticketing system,
or another system automating process flow, this step in the process would be the
completion of the implementation plan (and automatic availability for review).
Implement Plan. The implementor, using the plan and any subsequent feedback
from the initiator or the knowledge steward, represents the knowledge according to
the plan.
The initiator ensures that the implemented knowledge satisfies the need in the real
world.
If the initiator is not satisfied with the outcome, they are obligated to identify
specific problems and work with the knowledge steward and/or the implementor to
resolve those problems. It should be noted that only the initiator may end the
process.
If the initiator is satisfied with the outcome, a rating on the success is captured, and
the process ends.
Process Output
The output of the process is the delivery of a formalized knowledge asset that
meets the needs of the individual who originally instigated its creation, as well as
the organization's needs. The characteristics of the deliverable include:
The asset is in a form that cannot "walk out the door."
The asset is in a form that encourages reuse (i.e., can be used without the
need to represent it in another format).
Because of the ownership or "customer" role of the initiator, the process is not
complete until the initiator evaluates the deliverable and provides a rating on the
quality of the deliverable. The initiator should provide the following feedback:
If the deliverable fails to successfully address the need, the initiator must provide
feedback to the steward (and if necessary, to the implementor) on specific
deficiencies, and appropriate changes should result. These occasions where the
process receives a "failing grade" should be viewed as learning opportunities and
evaluated during regular process reviews.
Indicators and measures provide actual data on whether critical client requirements
are being met by the process. In this case, the clients of the process are the
"consumers" of the organization's knowledge, and the management responsible for
meeting their organization's strategic goals.
Process Indicators
Process indicators, or measures, are taken at critical points within the process and
serve as early warning signs that something is wrong (e.g., randomly testing
machine parts leaving a work cell to ensure that all parts are within established
tolerances). Process indicators are a means of quality assurance because corrective
action can be taken before delivering the output to the client.
Has specification been completed for the knowledge types involved? As the
process evolves, this measure should increasingly be used to keep
inadequately specified concepts from being handed off from one role to
another.
Does the knowledge concept meet the criteria for development? Again, the
criteria will emerge more fully as the process evolves. If possible, initiators
should have the tools necessary to make a preliminary determination of
whether the knowledge concept is appropriate (e.g., by looking up key
concept terms in a data dictionary or on-line knowledge repository).
Quality Indicators
Quality Indicators or measures are usually taken at the end of the process when
defects require rework (e.g., Mean Time to Failure, Mean Time to Repair). Quality
Indicators provide feedback on the overall success of the process in meeting the
client needs.
The MTTR may also be used to illustrate that the same level of service is being
provided with reduced headcount, or with less skilled employees.
Outcome Ratings. How well (e.g., on scale of 1-5) do the initiator and/or
knowledge steward rate the resolution? How many implementations were
returned for rework one or more times before they were accepted?
In reality, it is easy for a process to exist on paper, and for alternate, informal
processes to spring up. To ensure that this does not happen, it is imperative to:
Process and quality indicators are critical elements in both of these efforts.
Aligning the Process. People generally act out of self-interest. If there are no
perceived benefit or consequence to using a process, the process will be ignored. If
there is no perceived benefit, and only negative consequences (i.e., users will be
punished for failure to use the process), the process will be utilized at the lowest
level possible.
In the process definition above, the initiator is viewed as the owner of their own
knowledge, and has been given the final approval over whether the formal
implementation of that knowledge meets the real-world need. This is intended to
make it clear to them that there is a benefit in using the process to get their
knowledge into the system. Hopefully, the initiators will see this as an
improvement on the current process, in which ideas are "tossed over the wall" to
other groups, sometimes never to be seen again.
After the process has matured, and expectations of what a knowledge concept
specification includes becomes clearer, it may also be beneficial to factor the
rejection rate for an initiator's knowledge concepts into the evaluation process as
well.
THE ONTOLOGY
For clients, who need to describe knowledge to be added to the system, the
ontology offers a standard vocabulary, and guidance in creating a precise
specification.
The ontology should expand on any work already done to standardize the
terminology used in a given domain, to include objects of all types relevant to the
project.
The anticipated evolution of the ontology is that it will begin with the identification
of certain simple terms (e.g., domain concepts) and their arrangement within a
network or hierarchy. As experience is gained in representing the knowledge,
complex terms will emerge that act as a means of functionally grouping a number
of simple objects together (e.g., a problem/resolution might consist of one or more
events, the associated underlying failures, and one or more procedures).
One metaphor for this is LEGO building bricks; a fixed set of objects is defined,
each with its own properties, and ways in which it can be connected to other
objects. Users may choose to instantiate objects, assemble them in a precisely pre-
defined manner (similar to buying a LEGO model, and assembling it as defined in
the instructions), elaborate on a pre-defined model, or assemble them in some
novel but useful fashion. Ideally, all of these approaches are supported (although
computerized support for some of these ideas may not be available immediately).
Creation: Given a simple or complex object type, lead the user, with form
and menu-based interfaces, through supplying the necessary information.
Knowledge of an underlying representation, such as the Knowledge
Interchange Format (Genesereth & Fikes, 1992), should not be required.
Browsing: Enter the ontology from any point, and browse the representation
in the manner of a hypertext document. Alternatively, enter keywords and
view all related terms. The task of figuring out whether something is already
in the system should be made as easy as possible.
Guidance: Use the attributes and relations that have already been defined to
dynamically identify object types, or guide the creation of new object types.
For example, present a menu of attributes and relations to the user. As they
cumulatively select the appropriate terms that they know they need to
define, they see a list of all those object types that contain that term. The list
should quickly get small enough for the user to either identify the correct
object type, or realize that they need a new object type (in which case, the
terms they've selected would serve as the basis for the formal specification
of that type).
In addition, it is expected that any software developed would actively support the
knowledge acquisition and management process, and be easily modified in
response to changes or refinements in the process.
This document describes one possible approach to the knowledge acquisition and
management process. It has been proposed as a means of addressing the specific
knowledge needs of a U S WEST project to better manage hardware and software
event management for an internal help desk. The process is currently undergoing
testing to evaluate its utility and identify weaknesses. To fully integrate this
process into a project will require further work.