Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Jiří Franek and Eva Grublova
learned and trained using mostly <strong>the</strong> explicit knowledge, and <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> affective domain is <strong>of</strong>ten a
question <strong>of</strong> tacit knowledge (learned by experience on <strong>the</strong> job). The main purpose <strong>of</strong> this taxonomy
was to help in learning activities. However some works on knowledge management suggests its
implication in this area.
3.2.1 Cognitive domain levels
If we assume that cognitive domain represents basic knowledge work mental skills, <strong>the</strong>n its levels can
be used as a framework for knowledge worker typology. The cognitive domain taxonomy levels from
low to high consist <strong>of</strong> knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, syn<strong>the</strong>sis, and evaluation.
Reviewed Bloom’s Taxonomy by Pohl (2000) brought a few changes. So, <strong>the</strong> current levels are:
remembering (knowledge), understanding (comprehension), applying (application), analyzing
(analysis), evaluating (evaluation), and creating (syn<strong>the</strong>sis) (for fur<strong>the</strong>r details see appendix 1). The
cognitive domain levels could help to define <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> knowledge work conducted by KWs.
Comparing knowledge workers typology with given knowledge levels, we can assume that first three
levels (remembering, understanding, and applying) represent knowledge user’s approach to
knowledge work. Fur<strong>the</strong>r three levels (analysing, evaluating, and creating) regard to knowledge
creator’s knowledge activities. The third knowledge worker type, <strong>the</strong> knowledge facilitator, should be
able to evolve from all <strong>of</strong> previous levels but <strong>the</strong>re should be ano<strong>the</strong>r level that could differentiate KFs
from o<strong>the</strong>r knowledge workers. According to requirements that KFs should fulfil, based on previous
levels it can be assumed that a level <strong>of</strong> system perception (e.g. knowledge flow) has to be one <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong>m (see appendix 1). We can describe it as <strong>the</strong> ability to see knowledge work in relations. Using
system thinking to make purposeful complexes with regard to o<strong>the</strong>rs (e.g. to combine, communicate,
compile, create, goal setting, initiate, lead, manage and organize, setting a vision, etc.). First three
levels should characterize utilization <strong>of</strong> explicit knowledge by knowledge users. Next three levels
define more creative approach to work with explicit knowledge and information. The last level focuses
on managerial skills necessary for KF’s work.
3.2.2 Affective domain levels
We can assume that affective domain represents <strong>the</strong> tacit knowledge and its cycle (see appendix 2).
Knowledge users should be able to receive and respond to given explicit knowledge. It can be
assume that evolving in to <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> knowledge creators, KWs have to be able to value, organize
and internalize explicit knowledge. According to claims above knowledge creators could become
knowledge facilitators. Based on given characteristics <strong>of</strong> KFs, we can assume that <strong>the</strong> tacit
communication skills make <strong>the</strong> difference. It means an ability to communicate, persuade and promote
knowledge to o<strong>the</strong>r KWs.
3.2.3 Psychomotor domain levels
Psychomotor domain level represents <strong>the</strong> manual knowledge. As discussed previously, knowledge
workers are to be found also among manual workers (e.g. Truneček 2004; Bureš 2007). Even
knowledge work includes some basic psychomotor aspects. As Truneček (2004) states <strong>the</strong> border
between manual wand knowledge workers is fuzzy. Knowledge users among manual workers can be
perceived as operation workers (operators) using only explicit manual knowledge. They should be
able to use cues to guide activities (level <strong>of</strong> perception), readiness to act (level <strong>of</strong> set), <strong>the</strong> adequate
performance is achieved by practicing (level <strong>of</strong> guided response), responses are habitual and <strong>the</strong>
movements can be performed with confidence and pr<strong>of</strong>iciency (level <strong>of</strong> mechanism and complex over
response). On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand knowledge creators have well developed skills and can modify
movement patterns to fit special requirements, <strong>the</strong>y are able to create new movement patterns to fit a
particular situation or specific problem. Results <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir work can be used by o<strong>the</strong>r workers. The third
type <strong>of</strong> KW should also evolve through mentioned levels. The position <strong>of</strong> knowledge facilitator among
manual workers falls into collaboration (last psychomotor level). Their main purpose is to match right
workers toge<strong>the</strong>r to achieve a common goal. KFs promote cooperation among o<strong>the</strong>rs. They have to
be aware <strong>of</strong> worker’s knowledge. They build a network inside <strong>the</strong> operation and ensure <strong>the</strong>re are no
problems related to one’s manual knowledge gaps.
3.3 The instrument concept
In order to construct an instrument from assumptions discussed above (see table 1) a study should be
conducted. Given cognitive, affective and psychomotor domain levels have to be recognized as
characteristics that must be proved. Based on those characteristics a probe into organization
303