Knowledge Scaffolding: A Classification of Visual Structures for Knowledge Communication in Teams

In this conceptual paper we develop Wanda Orlikowski's [1] idea of considering the distinguishing characteristics of physical scaffolds as a metaphor to offer insights into how knowledge in practice is materially scaffolded. We build on an interdisciplinary analogy between two connotations of the notion of "scaffolding": physical scaffolding from an architectural-engineering perspective and scaffolding of the "everyday knowing in practice" from a knowledge management perspective. Based on that, we classify visual structures for knowledge communication in teams into four types of scaffolds: grounded (corresponding i.e., to perspectives diagrams or dynamic facilitation diagrams), suspended (i.e., negotiation sketches), panel (i.e., roadmaps or timelines) and reinforcing (i.e., a visual domain glossary). The article concludes with a set of recommendations in the form of questions to ask whenever practitioners are making choices regarding which types of visual structures should be used for specific knowledge communication needs. Our recommendations aim at providing a framework at a broad-brush level to aid choosing a suitable visualization template depending on the type of knowledge management endeavor.

[1]  David Clarke,et al.  Scaffolding and metacognition , 2006 .

[2]  Jacky Swan,et al.  Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[3]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication (Learning in Doing: Social, , 1987 .

[4]  Martin J. Eppler,et al.  Managing team knowledge: core processes, tools and enabling factors , 2000 .

[5]  H.M. Grady.  Instructional Scaffolding for Online Courses , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference.

[6]  W. F. Chen,et al.  High clearance scaffold systems during construction —I. Structural modelling and modes of failure , 1996 .

[7]  Frank Blackler,et al.  On the Life of the Object , 2005 .

[8]  Jennifer Whyte,et al.  Visual practices and the objects used in design , 2007 .

[9]  K. K. Cetina.  Sociality with Objects , 1997 .

[10]  K. Knorr-Cetina,et al.  Epistemic cultures : how the sciences make knowledge , 1999 .

[11]  Elitsa Vasileva Shumarova,et al.  Authority-based and bottom-up diffusion of collaboration information technologies: constraints and enablements , 2009 .

[12]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  The incompatibility of knowledge regimes: consequences of the material world for cross-domain work , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[13]  R. Phaal,et al.  Developing a technology roadmapping system , 2005, A Unifying Discipline for Melting the Boundaries Technology Management:.

[14]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Material knowing: the scaffolding of human knowledgeability , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Hans-Jrg Rheinberger,et al.  A Reply to David Bloor: Toward a Sociology of Epistemic Things , 2005, Perspectives on Science.

[16]  Ramkrishnan V. Tenkasi,et al.  P ERSPECTIVE M AKING AND P ERSPECTIVE T AKING IN C OMMUNITIES OF K NOWING , 2000 .

[17]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Concept of “Ba”: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation , 1998 .

[18]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications , 1996 .

[19]  Robert D. Galliers,et al.  Commentary on Wanda Orlikowski's ‘Material knowing: the scaffolding of human knowledgeability’ , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Michael L. Anderson,et al.  Content and action: The guidance theory of representation , 2004 .

[21]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[22]  David R. Traum,et al.  Degrees of Grounding Based on Evidence of Understanding , 2008, SIGDIAL Workshop.

[23]  Gabrielle Durepos.  Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor‐Network‐Theory , 2008 .

[24]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[25]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: The Differential Effect of GSS Restrictiveness on Process Satisfaction and Group Cohesion , 2008 .

[26]  M. Goodale,et al.  The visual brain in action , 1995 .

[27]  Beth A. Bechky.  Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[28]  Marian Petre,et al.  Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A 'Cognitive Dimensions' Framework , 1996, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[29]  H. Rheinberger.  Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube , 1997 .

[30]  Elaine K. Yakura,et al.  Charting Time: Timelines as Temporal Boundary Objects , 2002 .

[31]  Karen Ruhleder,et al.  Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces , 1996, Inf. Syst. Res..

[32]  Maria Kutar,et al.  Cognitive Dimensions of Notations: Design Tools for Cognitive Technology , 2001, Cognitive Technology.

[33]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[34]  Kathryn Henderson,et al.  Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering , 1991 .

[35]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[36]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  Understanding and facilitating group problem structuring and formulation: Mental representations, interaction, and representation aids , 1996, Decis. Support Syst..

[37]  S. L. Star,et al.  This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept , 2010 .

[38]  Ole Hanseth,et al.  Designing Work Oriented Infrastructures , 2001, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[39]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987 .

[40]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Into the black box: the knowledge transformation cycle , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[41]  Natalia Levina,et al.  Collaborating on Multi-Party Information Systems Development Projects: A Collective Reflection-in-Action View , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[42]  K. Weick.  Technology as equivoque: sensemaking in new technologies , 1990 .

[43]  Davide Nicolini,et al.  Learning In a Constellation of Interconnected Practices: Canon or Dissonance? , 2002 .

[44]  Peter Reimann.  Co-Constructing Artefacts and Knowledge in Net-Based Teams: Implications for the Design of Collaborative Learning Environments. , 2005 .

[45]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[46]  T. Koschmann,et al.  Reconsidering Common Ground , 2003 .

[47]  Teun A. van Dijk,et al.  Discourse as structure and process , 1997 .

[48]  Jesper Simonsen,et al.  Design Research : Synergies from Interdisciplinary Perspectives , 2010 .