Elicitation

Different perspectives on knowledge modeling exist and apparent conflicts may spring from different perspectives (e.g. light shows particle behavior and golf behavior at the same time dependent on the perspective chosen).

In this paragraph I will elaborate on certain knowledge modeling perspectives.

Perception direct - indirect

Some methods approach expert knowledge directly by observing behavior of the expert(s) during the execution of a knowledgeable task (e.g. in a decision-making process). Not all circumstances allow direct perception (e.g. a war-fighter in a combat situation). We then have to fall back on perception of behavior in an artificial task-environment (e.g. a flight

simulator) but then arguments must be given that the perceived behavior is similar to the behavior that we originally wanted to perceive (which causes fundamental problems). Other forms of indirect perception are eyewitness reports, literature etc. from which we deduct our own mental model of the behavior of interest. An important and often forgotten indirect perception approach is artifact analysis. By literally studying foot- and fingerprints we can find out what documents are really important, what places are visited a lot etc..

Knowledge Management: The Role of Mental Models in Business Systems Feedback from the expert(s) or not

Since knowledge itself is not directly accessible it is important that the knowledge model under construction is presented to the expert(s) so that the possibility to give feedback is offered. If feedback is desired strong requirements are posed upon the properties of the representation. It then is absolutely necessary that the experts know how to interpret the knowledge model.

Behavior oriented or cognitive-model oriented

Elicitation methods can be divided into methods that are primarily focused on the behavior shown by the expert and methods that are focused on revealing the underlying cognitive model. The latter often starts with the results of the first; by interpreting the results of behavioral studies a representation of a mental model is designed and from that model (owned by the researcher) experiments are designed to ‘prove’ the reconstruction (of the mental model) was right. A hard problem is the validity of the posed model. The number of conditions that influence the overt behavior can be nearly infinite, so it is not easy to operationalize experiments in non-trivial real life (e.g. work situations).

Tacit knowledge

A disputable approach is to let the expert express his or her mental model in an offline interview setting, a method commonly applied by knowledge engineers and psychologists. First of all some knowledge is what is called tacit knowledge; the expert is able to perform a certain task without being able to express the steps it takes to do it (I for instance am able to work with the word-processor with which this text is produced, but can not state all the functions of that program, not even the ones I have actually used).

Tacit knowledge is some times called muscle-memory, intuition or eye of the expert. Secondly the expressed mental model often is far from complete and in some cases internally inconsistent. Political and psychological barriers also may prevent the expert from expressing a complete and consistent (and perhaps true) mental model.

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics delivers a solution for this problem although we can raise a fundamental burden against that solution. According to the hermeneutic approach (see eg. Van der Veer 1990 and Jordan 1996) the mental-model is constructed by the model constructor by doing the task himself (herself) and then introspectively determines what mental model underlies the task behavior. The same method can be applied to verbal behavior. In that case the constructor introspectively determines what mental model underlies the

language behavior of the expert (why would (s)he express himself (herself) in such a way ?).

Several fundamental objections can be made against hermeneutics.

The hermeneutic approach is based upon the projection of the mental model of the model constructor on the mental model that forms the object of examination. This projection is colored by the specific mental

dispositions such as the norms and values, previous experiences and the knowledge already acquired. The hermeneutic approach presupposes that the model constructor is able to understand (a relevant part of) both the content and the motives of the experts cognitive system when the expert is performing his knowledgeable behavior. Hermeneutics doesn’t hold the claim that the model constructor is 'smarter than the expert' (since he understands the experts cognitive model with respect to the universe of discourse and is able to express his knowledge, which the expert could not because he lacked the ability, or would not because of (business) political or personal reasons). Hermeneutics merely offers an additional viewpoint different from that of the expert. It must be remembered that the

hermeneutic approach is meant to help to express the knowledge used. Of course it is possible to acquire knowledge necessary for the execution of non-trivial or even complex tasks even if this demands tacit knowledge (as is for instance the case in playing football or driving cars). However, unless you wanted to be an expert yourself in the first place, hermeneutics does not necessarily help to make tacit knowledge explicit. However, it is possible that the structure and the dynamics of the mental model can be detected.

The knowledge model produced using hermeneutics needs to be validated by the expert. Here we must be aware that the expert may not want to disappoint the model constructor and therefore only gives socially desirable answers. Cultural differences between the constructor and the expert (caused by origin, educational background etc.) may increase this problem.

Because the hermeneutic approach is based upon individual projection, it is doubtful that the method is objective i.e. that different constructors

modeling the same behavior will come up with the same model (but both dynamics and structure of mental models have been proven to be conceptualized reliably: Van der Veer found inter-rater reliability

coefficients of the same level as psychological personality inventories (Van der Veer 1990).

Hermeneutics surely isn't the panacea for all problems. In some cases no other choice is left then to become a bit of an expert yourself and to model the knowledge you've acquired the best you can introspectively.

Ethnographers work along the same course of action (see e.g. Jordan

Knowledge Management: The Role of Mental Models in Business Systems

1996). After thoroughly checking and testing your model this approach may deliver the best possible model. In such cases the hermeneutic approach may offer the only help available.