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

Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon
knowledge management process, <strong>the</strong> selection <strong>of</strong> knowledge engineers is critical in minimising <strong>the</strong>
problems <strong>of</strong> knowledge inaccuracies. Welbank (1983) identified a set <strong>of</strong> interpersonal skills required
by a knowledge engineer. These include self-confidence, tact and diplomacy, versatility, empathy,
patience and persistence. Not only are <strong>the</strong>se ‘s<strong>of</strong>t’ skills critical to <strong>the</strong> success <strong>of</strong> a KE initiative, <strong>the</strong>
knowledge engineer should possess a working knowledge about <strong>the</strong> domain. It is vital to have an
awareness <strong>of</strong> recent developments and an ability to be critical <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> knowledge transferred in order to
elicit deeper understanding <strong>of</strong> concepts being exposed. As a means <strong>of</strong> reducing costs, <strong>the</strong> KE
engineer must also be aware <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most appropriate KE techniques as well as ensuring that a
common set <strong>of</strong> terms is put in place in order to facilitate <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> multiple experts from differing
fields. They are essential in supporting <strong>the</strong> KE process, in terms <strong>of</strong> resolving issues concerned with
<strong>the</strong> unbalanced picture presented by <strong>the</strong> experts. It is <strong>the</strong> knowledge engineer who must keep <strong>the</strong> KE
process focused on <strong>the</strong> goals established at <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> activity.
Whilst an expert’s knowledge cannot be extracted in its entirety, KE tools are capable <strong>of</strong> providing rich
information relating to concepts, relations, facts, rules, and strategies relevant to <strong>the</strong> domain in
question. The following section will provide an overview <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> various methods and categorisations in
literature.
2.3 Knowledge Elicitation Techniques
Adding to <strong>the</strong> complexity <strong>of</strong> KE is <strong>the</strong> abundance <strong>of</strong> techniques that have been developed to assist in
<strong>the</strong> elicitation <strong>of</strong> knowledge from experts. In an attempt to aid <strong>the</strong> selection process, efforts have been
made to classify KE techniques. These categorisations provide an overview as to when and where
techniques are most appropriate.
2.3.1 Direct / Indirect Methods
The first categorisation is <strong>the</strong> distinction used by Olson and Biolsi (1991). They divided techniques
into two classifications, Direct and Indirect methods. Direct methods refer to those that expose
knowledge directly from <strong>the</strong> expert during a KE session. These range from interviews, whereby <strong>the</strong>
expert articulates knowledge, through to observations, in which expertise is demonstrated in real-time.
Table 4.1 contains a list <strong>of</strong> methods associated with this categorisation. Direct KA techniques allow
direct access to various types <strong>of</strong> knowledge. Whilst <strong>the</strong>se techniques are useful in ga<strong>the</strong>ring
knowledge at <strong>the</strong> onset <strong>of</strong> KM activities, <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten fail to elicit deep knowledge (Sanchez et al., 2010).
Typically <strong>the</strong> knowledge uncovered is declarative (i.e. lacking context) or surface knowledge (Olson &
Rueter, 1987). Ano<strong>the</strong>r limitation is that <strong>the</strong>se methods are limited to what an expert can articulate. In
conducting <strong>the</strong>se sessions, a common terminology must exist between knowledge engineer and
expert.
Table 1: Examples <strong>of</strong> Direct KE Methods
Category Examples
Direct Techniques Interviews
Think-aloud
Observation
Interruption Analysis
By contrast, Indirect Methods are defined as techniques whereby <strong>the</strong> knowledge engineer infers
knowledge from <strong>the</strong> expert’s behaviour. KE sessions are performed and retrospectively analysed in
order to elicit knowledge. Indirect techniques (Table 4.2) do not rely on an expert's ability to articulate
<strong>the</strong> knowledge. Actions and behaviours are collected from which inferences about what <strong>the</strong> expert’s
decision making processes can be made. These techniques are used to uncover a deeper
(procedural or semantic) knowledge, but <strong>of</strong>ten require interpretation that makes <strong>the</strong>m subject to bias if
misused (Olson and Rueter, 1987). In selecting KE techniques, a combination <strong>of</strong> indirect and direct is
seen as being desirable. Overreliance on one set would exclude o<strong>the</strong>r forms <strong>of</strong> knowledge from <strong>the</strong>
elicitation process.
Table 2: Examples <strong>of</strong> Indirect KE Methods
Category Examples
Indirect Techniques Multidimensional Scaling
Repertory Grid Analysis
General Weighted Networks
Ordered Trees from Recall
594