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

2.3.2 Natural and Contrived KE techniques
Peter Marshall and Damian Gordon
The next categorisation is <strong>the</strong> difference between natural and contrived techniques (Shabolt & Burton,
1989). Natural Techniques are defined as those that involve <strong>the</strong> expert doing tasks normally
associated with <strong>the</strong>ir job allowing insights to be gained naturally from <strong>the</strong> expert in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong>
concurrent articulation, demonstrations or retrospectively analysis. These techniques are commonly
used in eliciting procedural knowledge about tasks. An advantage <strong>of</strong> natural techniques is that <strong>the</strong>y
are suited to a work environment, <strong>the</strong>refore minimising time taken out <strong>of</strong> a work schedule. However
<strong>the</strong>y are limited in acquiring tacit knowledge and atypical knowledge.
Table 3: Examples <strong>of</strong> Natural KE Methods
Category Examples
Natural Techniques Interviews
Observation
Group Meetings
Questionnaires
To facilitate <strong>the</strong> acquisition <strong>of</strong> such knowledge, Contrived Techniques can be employed. These
techniques put experts in artificial scenarios, far removed from <strong>the</strong>ir everyday work. Techniques, such
as card sorting and laddering, can be used to challenge an expert; exposing <strong>the</strong>ir problem solving
behaviours as well as revealing facets <strong>of</strong> knowledge (e.g. rules <strong>of</strong> thumb) developed through
experience. In performing a KE exercise, Shabolt and Burton (1989) recommends a combination <strong>of</strong>
both natural (table 4.3) and contrived (table 4.4) techniques.
Table 4: Examples <strong>of</strong> Contrived KE Methods
Category Examples
Contrived Techniques Card Sorting
Triadic Elicitation
Repository Grid Technique
Constraint Tasks
2.3.3 Individual and Group KE techniques
The majority <strong>of</strong> KE research focuses on <strong>the</strong> elicitation <strong>of</strong> knowledge from a single human expert.
Moore & Miles (1991) noted that <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> single expert normally occurs by default, as opposed to a
conscious selection choice. There are limitations when used in this mode e.g. scope restricted to <strong>the</strong>
size and complexity <strong>of</strong> an expert’s knowledge (McGraw & Seale, 1988). The absence <strong>of</strong> multiple
experts in <strong>the</strong> KE process also impacts <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> KE process to fill gaps that exist in an expert's
knowledge (Mittal & Dym, 1995). As seen in section 3.2, access to even a single expert, particularly
those critical to an organisations primary function, can be difficult. Ano<strong>the</strong>r limitation <strong>of</strong> single expert
KE is that <strong>the</strong> reliance on <strong>the</strong> expertise <strong>of</strong> an individual as it might not accurately reflect <strong>the</strong> actual
decision making process; particularly when organisational decisions are made through collaboration
with multiple stakeholders (McGraw & Harbison-Briggs, 1989).
In response, KE techniques have been developed to foster <strong>the</strong> opinions <strong>of</strong> multiple experts (Table
4.5). There are several difficulties associated in dealing with groups <strong>of</strong> experts. In section 3.2, we
made reference to <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>of</strong> identifying and selecting <strong>of</strong> expertise for <strong>the</strong> KE process. Techniques
can also be limited in terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> participants who can be involved in <strong>the</strong> KE process. The
number <strong>of</strong> experts must be large enough to ensure coverage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> domain, whilst small enough so
that <strong>the</strong> process can remain manageable (McGraw & Seale, 1988). Dealing with groups <strong>of</strong> individuals
will, almost always, result in some form <strong>of</strong> conflict. In order to facilitate group techniques some form <strong>of</strong>
conflict resolution and consensus mechanism needs to incorporate (Turban, 1998).
Table 5: Examples <strong>of</strong> Multiple Domain KE Methods
Category Examples
Multiple Domain Experts Focus Groups
DeBono’s 6 Hats <strong>of</strong> Thinking
Concept Maps
PMI
595