Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Strategic knowledge articulated non-verbally
Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon
From <strong>the</strong>se findings, a series <strong>of</strong> graphs will be created as a means <strong>of</strong> comparison.
Procedural steps required to perform <strong>the</strong> arm-bar technique
Strategic knowledge found for <strong>the</strong> arm-bar technique
Procedural steps required to perform <strong>the</strong> tai-otoshi throw
Strategic knowledge found for <strong>the</strong> tai-otoshi throw
4. Results
The results are presented considering <strong>the</strong> two techniques (Arm-Bar and Tai-Otoshi) from <strong>the</strong>
perspectives <strong>of</strong> both Procedural knowledge and Strategic knowledge.
4.1 Elicitation <strong>of</strong> procedural knowledge for <strong>the</strong> Arm-Bar technique
The first comparison <strong>of</strong> elicited knowledge was <strong>the</strong> comparison <strong>of</strong> techniques in eliciting procedural
steps required to perform <strong>the</strong> arm bar technique. From <strong>the</strong> results in figure 1, <strong>the</strong> initial demonstration
<strong>of</strong> technique identified nine steps, six <strong>of</strong> which were articulated verbally and three non-verbally. The
cognitive walkthrough not only identified <strong>the</strong> nine steps but <strong>the</strong> steps were verbally identified. With <strong>the</strong>
OIM demonstration, only five <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nine steps were identified and only one <strong>of</strong> those articulated
verbally. The triadic elicitation and commentary methods failed to identify any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> steps.
Procedural Steps Identified
Verbal
Non Verbal
Results From Elicitation
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number <strong>of</strong> Steps
Identified
Cognitive WalkThrough
Triadic Elicitation
Commentary
OIM
Initial Demonstration
Figure 1: Comparison <strong>of</strong> verbal and non-verbal procedural steps elicited for <strong>the</strong> Arm Bar Technique
4.2 Elicitation <strong>of</strong> procedural knowledge for <strong>the</strong> Tai-Otoshi technique
The next comparison <strong>of</strong> elicited knowledge was <strong>the</strong> comparison <strong>of</strong> techniques in eliciting procedural
steps required to perform <strong>the</strong> tai-otoshi throw. From <strong>the</strong> results in figure 2, <strong>the</strong> initial demonstration <strong>of</strong>
technique identified seven steps, five <strong>of</strong> which were articulated verbally and two non-verbally. As can
be seen in <strong>the</strong> results, <strong>the</strong> initial demonstration was superior to <strong>the</strong> elicitation methods. In <strong>the</strong>
cognitive walkthrough, two were verbally identified and <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r five, non-verbally. In <strong>the</strong> OIM
demonstration, four were identified and three non-verbally. Once again, <strong>the</strong> triadic elicitation and
commentary methods failed to identify any <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> steps.
4.3 Elicitation <strong>of</strong> strategic knowledge for <strong>the</strong> Arm-bar technique
The third comparison <strong>of</strong> elicited knowledge was <strong>the</strong> comparison <strong>of</strong> techniques in eliciting strategic
knowledge required to perform <strong>the</strong> arm-bar technique. In <strong>the</strong> initial demonstration, three methods
were identified non-verbally. In <strong>the</strong> OIM method, two techniques were shown both <strong>of</strong> which were
227