Knowledge Management would be better off as a discipline if it leaned into the management side more, and relied a little less exclusively on the knowledge side. It’s possible to read articles or even whole books on KM and find little discussion specifying the knowledge that people use, specifically how they use it in producing value, and/or what it costs.
Productive knowledge is transitive and transactional; it is necessarily “about” something. That something is the work that knowledge users do in producing value in the process of doing their jobs.
This reminds me of my college physics classes, where they would start discussions by positing, “Assume there is no gravity and no friction.” This is because many basic models in mechanics work best under these idealized conditions. But in the real world, where (regrettably) we all have to deal with both gravity and friction — the models need substantial modification before they adequately describe how things actually work.
I kept my previous post, The Research Matrix, blissfully free of such real-world considerations. Intentionally so, since the principles of “knowledge science” — like those of physics — admittedly work best without them.
The value context
In reality, knowledge exists only in a value context — it provides benefits, but also incurs costs. “Value” is simply the ratio of benefits to costs. My intention here is to add that context to my previous post, and to offer you a systematic framework with which to assess knowledge benefits and costs.
As our B2 list (“Nice to Know” items) grows, we still want to move things from Column B (What We Don’t Know) to Column A (What We Know) — but, in considering costs, we will surely need to make tradeoffs. Life could be a dream if time and budgets were in infinite supply, but they are not. So we need a “value of knowledge” payout table that considers the benefit (to solving our problem) and the cost of each “unit” of knowledge. This will enable us to create knowledge priorities driving a research agenda — essential in our world of all-too-finite resources.
“Cost versus value” is a theme I develop in the KVC Handbook (p. 40). At its most basic, it says that while the marginal COST of a given unit of knowledge is (more or less) fixed, its marginal BENEFIT is contextual based on the knowledge already possessed by the user. Marginal benefit typically decreases over time spent in a research process, because you are adding progressively less to what you already know.
We can relate benefit and cost to each other by means of a KNOWLEDGE BENEFIT/COST RATIO (KBCR) — the “bang for your knowledge buck,” and functionally equivalent to our knowledge value or ROI. KBCR is the function that we are seeking to maximize.