"Design and Assessment of Knowledge-Building Environments"

Dr. Leonard A. Plugge

1           Short resume

In 1986, I received my Masters degree in Psychology at the University Utrecht. My specialization was in artificial intelligence (AI) and learning. My Master thesis was about a symbolic case based learning system for the identification of terrorist attacks in North-West Europe. In 1992, I received my PhD at the Faculty of Medicine at the University Maastricht, on the subject of a knowledge-based system for the early diagnosis of dementia (Evince) and a new way of assessing the level of expertise of KBSs. This system used the integrated knowledge from three disciplines: Neurology, Psychiatry and Neuropsychology. In 1993, Prof. dr. H.J. van den Herik invited me to join the dept. of Computer Science at the University Maastricht in 1993.

2          Expression of Interest

The interest I have in KBEs stems from current work at the dept. of Computer Science, and fits my future task on Life Long Learning at the Maastricht McLuhan Institute of the University Maastricht.[1] During the first 5 years at dept. of Computer Science, my work focused at applied research for the Dutch, German and Belgium police forces. With grants from the European Union and the respective Ministries of Internal Affairs, my colleagues and I designed and built a European network for information exchange and cooperation. This network (EMMI[2]) is now operational along the borders between Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. An extension to France is under development to support the drug law enforcement. Additionally, we started cooperating with the Dutch chemical multinational DSM to do research on knowledge building tools for Technology Exchange Networks (TENs). TENs are groups of expert on one specific topic from all over the world, who meet on a yearly basis and usually contact each other by fax or phone.

3          Involvement with KBEs

Both cases, i.e., the EMMI police network, and the TENs involve the exchange of information with the aim to improve the knowledge of the people involved for their daily work. For the police this knowledge is about cross border crime, and for DSM it is about chemical production technology. My aim is to do research on the behavior people when they exchange knowledge through KBEs, and to find out what prevents or limits them from in using current KBEs.

4          Personal Ideas on KBEs

In our work with the police and DSM we encountered several basic findings, two of which we will discuss below.

Firstly, members of the TENs preferred to exchange ideas on a personal level through the phone, fax, or face-to-face, rather than using a KBE. However, when given the opportunity to build new and unofficial groups, they preferred discussion forums. These unofficial groups discussed other matters, but with a similar intention: exchanging ideas and knowledge about (new) chemical products and their applications. This means that formal or institutionalized discussion groups are not very effective. A possible reason for this phenomenon could be, that face-to-face meetings are more enjoyable, i.e., literally more sensory stimulating, and remove some of the official work-like atmosphere. For example, a joke made during a face-to-face communication or phone conversation does not stay recorded. It clears the air, eases people, but does not hang around all the time as in web forum discussions. Informal groups, however, do not need this type of easing-up. Each participant known that joining is voluntary and you can leave whenever you like. This is not possible in official groups where you must participate.

Secondly, we found out that both the police and DSM approach knowledge in a completely different way than, universities, or consultancy firms, for example. Although this seems obvious in hindsight, it only became evident later, after evaluating their use of the available facilities. In short, both the police and DSM are knowledge-enabled organizations, while universities are knowledge driven organizations. This has important implications for the behavior people exhibit in exchanging knowledge and the type of facilities they need. The focus of people in knowledge-enabled organizations is on production, whether it is producing chemical products or fighting crime. Exchanging knowledge with the aim to learn from good and bad practices does not even come second; it comes in third, after organizational matters. As we found out, the facilities available to the police and DSM people were too demanding. They had to spend too effort in the exchange while the benefit was not directly obvious. This means that KBEs must be better suited to abide to the golden rule on return of investment: “achieving a maximum result with a minimum effort”. In particular in situations where the primary aim is not exchange of knowledge. To make KBEs better suite this rule, they have to be an unobtrusive part of the daily work, not an additional burden. This is in many ways similar to the problems encountered in the use of knowledge-based system. People who could benefit from knowledge-based systems usually feel the extra effort needed to get results as a heavy burden.

Approximate one decade ago the Dutch police force went through the first wave of computerization dominated by “Automation Tools”. These tools replaced or enhanced many simple and routine activities, such as notating and storing data and writing letters. Currently, a second wave of computerization is in full swing characterized by “Information Tools”. The tools in this second wave replaced paper reference books, manuals, and bulletins with electronic versions and increase their availability and accessibility. Neither of these tools reduced the amount of work, but they did make it possible to do more and better in less time. However, although these tools have increased the possibilities for com­munication, and improved the dispersal and accessibility of information, there is a clear danger of information overload and unmanageable knowledge. This problem leads us to a third wave of computerization, the creation of “Knowledge (Building) Tools”. As with the first two waves, this third wave must seek a better, ergonomically, embedding in the daily (routine) activities of the people we think would benefit from them.