Knowledge Conversion and Transfer: A Mathematical Interpretation

Abstract

Knowledge and Information Knowledge and are often used interchangeably; in order to isolate any misunderstanding clear distinction between the two is needed. Nonaka (1994) defines as flow of messages and meaning, while knowledge is creation, and organization, the flow of information. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) described the similarity and differences between the two concepts; knowledge, unlike information, is about beliefs and commitment and is about action, where knowledge is product of particular instance and perspective. Knowledge, like information, is about meaning, which is context-specific and relational. Sanchez (2001) defined as the meaning that is attributed to some data, where are defined by Davenport and Prusak (1998, p. 2), as a set of discrete, objective facts about In which comparing with other derives meaning, where knowledge is a set of beliefs about casual relationships in the world and an organization (Sanchez, 2001, p.5). Boisot and Griffith (2001) defined as the meaning that is related to an observer's prior expectation when it is extracted from incoming data, where knowledge is the individual interpretation of the meaning of that modifies the individual beliefs that reside in him. Knapp (1998, p. 4) sees knowledge as information in action, where is mindfully applied for specific purpose and/or during specific task. Davenport and Prusak (1998, p. 3) defined as data that makes the difference; in other words, viewed as message is meant to shape up the individual that gets it, to make some difference in his prospect and insight and it only becomes knowledge when it conveys meaning for the receiver. Bailey and Clarke (2000) defined knowledge as usable ideas, ideas which are current, relevant and actionable. Data-Wisdom Conversion Spectrum Building on arrangement presented in the pervious section, and in order to introduce later concept Infoledge, clear representation of the Data-Wisdom conversion process is needed. Based on autopoietic epistemology as argued by Maturana and Varela (1980), they provide fundamentally different understanding of the input into system. Autopoietic systems are thus both closed and open. Open to data, but closed to and knowledge, both of which have to be interpreted inside the system where input is regarded as only. Alkhaldi (2005) refers to the Autopoietic system as the human mental framework. Autopoietic systems are self-referring and the world is thus not seen as fixed and objective; the world is constructed within the system and it is therefore not possible to represent reality. Knowledge is private, and is thus accumulated within the system. Alkhaldi (2005) presented methodical process (see Figure 1), where he indicated that once knowledge articulation is started by the knowledge owner (sender), will start to be accumulated and mounted by the knowledge recipient (receiver). A meaning will start to be formulated in the mental framework (the system as referred by Maturana and Varela, 1980) of the recipient through the processing of the accumulated and thus creates information. While the knowledge owner continues the articulation process, the recipient keeps adding meaning (reflect) to the previous concept obtained thereby converting it into direction. By this stage, the infoledge will be conceived, which is, in simple terms, with direction. In order to reach the knowledge stage, the recipient has to self-experience infoledge through the notion of doing (acting upon, perform) where he can validate the output of the pervious stage. Hence, knowledge is conceived and internalized with the recipient as the new knowledge owner. Knowledge can be viewed through experience, since the latter can provide the historical perception from which we perceive and comprehend the new circumstances and events. …