A MODEL FOR CLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION FOR BETTER KNOWLEDGE

CREATION
Nahid Hashemian Bojnord

Sasan Nobakht

Industrial Engineering Department

Computer Engineer Department

challenges and necessities differ. For classification two
features has been used. The two features categorized
information into four types. For each types of information the
challenges and necessities of knowledge creation has been
discussed. The rest of paper organized as follows. In section
2, by reviewing the literature, the role of information in
knowledge creation and some classification methods has
been discussed. In section 3, the two dimensional model and
the four types of information has been explained. Section 4
is for conclusions.

ABSTRACT
In knowledge hierarchy model the importance of information
in knowledge creation has been highlighted. In this paper, by
focus on knowledge hierarchy model, a model has been
developed for classification of information. Two features
have been used in the proposed model. The first feature is
information volume and the second feature is information
diversity. This model categorizes the information into four
major categories: similar and high volume information;
diverse and high volume information; similar and little
information; diverse and little information. In this paper, for
each types of information, the conditions for better
knowledge creation has been discussed.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
One of the most important stages of knowledge
management is knowledge creation. There are many models
for knowledge creation in the literature. Many scholars use
the data- information- knowledge hierarchy as the basis for
distilling knowledge from information and data. Bragonza
proposed a new way of thinking about these concepts. The
knowledgeinformationdata (KID) model reverses the
existing hierarchy, which suggests knowledge is a product of
data and information. In other words, instead of a bottom up
approach to identify knowledge; the concepts are reorganized
to be top down, with knowledge leading to information which
determines data [6]. Different types of gathered information
should be transformed into knowledge. And each types of
information can be transformed into especial types of
knowledge. Each types of information need especial process
to transform into the necessary knowledge. The material
(information) and the process (knowledge works) and the
product (created knowledge) are intangible and not well
defined. So, the main challenge in managing the knowledge
creation appears. There are some models for classification of
information,
knowledge
works,
and
knowledge.
Classification of them helps for better knowledge creation
management. Classifications simplify the environment by
reduction of confusion among the surrounded things.
Classification provides a way to understand complexity
better. A class is a group of concepts that have at least one
thing in common. This shared property gives the class its
identity. Classifications may be designed for various
purposes. In this paper the classification has done because of
better management of knowledge creation. Knowledge
creation is very important and difficult because of
intangibility and undefined identity of knowledge [7]. By

Index Terms Knowledge Management, Information

Management, Classification
1. INTRODUCTION
Todays economy provides necessity for improvement of
a
strategic,
comprehensive,
holistic and adoption
Knowledge Management (KM) to get the competitive
advantage[1]. Knowledge creation is one of the most
important stages of successful knowledge management.
Research shows that organizations receive an abundance of
information and should extract their necessary knowledge
from them [2]. Information and its inter-organizational
management constitute critical factors for the acquisition and
the sustenance of a competitive advantage in modern
companies [3]. Information is important to any organization.
Many organizations are continuously looking for solutions to
effectively seek and handle information within their internal
and external environments. Suitable and high quality
information can improve decision-making, enhance
efficiency, and allow organizations to gain competitive
advantages [4].
Organizations create their necessary
knowledge from information. They should manage the
information and the created knowledge from them. The main
challenge is the management of such intangible and
undefined, but important things [5].
Classification of information helps them to provide better
context for better knowledge creation. In this paper a model
for classification of information has been developed. For each
types of information the knowledge creation process and the

978-1-4799-3343-3/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

232

ICECCO 2013

(2) The complexity of work, the degree of cognitive

activity such as interpretation and judgment required to
perform the work.
In the literature there are some classifications for knowledge
too. The most famous classifications are:
Tacit and explicit knowledge presented by Nonaka. In
this paper we focus on process and the information. The
proposed model in this paper provides a link between
information management and knowledge management.
Information management (IM) and KM originated from the
cycle of transferring data into information and information
into knowledge [13].
There are methods for information classification based on
the identity of information for example linguistic or text
information [14]. This classification can be used for
information management systems, but in this paper we
propose a model for classification of information in order to
improve knowledge creation cycle and better knowledge
management. Two features have been considered for
information and the proposed two dimensional model
categorizes knowledge into four types.

recognizing the type of knowledge, the class can be defined

and at the beginning some challenges and necessities clears.
At first we review the classification of knowledge works.
Many researches classified the knowledge works based on the
identity of works. Drucker(1999) defines a type of
knowledge worker that do both manual work and knowledge
work as technologists and suggests that they may be the
biggest and fastest growing single group of knowledge
workers[8].
Dove (1998), for example, groups knowledge works into
three classes [9]:
(1) Creation of knowledge work, based on innovation.
These workers, such as engineers, managers and inventors,
depend on innovation to do their work. They are not doing a
pre-established task, but rather they define and perform their
task for the very first time. They create tools that will be used
by other knowledge workers to do their jobs.
(2) Portable knowledge work, based on wide, immediate
utility. These workers possess knowledge that they can apply
in a general manner. They can use their knowledge in various
scenarios or organizations. Examples of this class are
graduating MBAs and software programmers. These workers
use their general knowledge to run operations or use
previously designed tools to do their job. In that regard, as
opposed to the Class 1 workers, they use their knowledge
to perform a task that has been previously established.
(3) Specialty knowledge work, based on narrow but high
utility. These workers have a specific knowledge that is
needed to perform a task. They are considered experts at what
they do, and possess knowledge in applications that are
specific to the task they do and their knowledge is not easily
transferable to other areas. An example of this type of worker
may include programmers that write code in a proprietary
language.
Coates (1986) divides knowledge works into three
alternate categories: clerical, professional, and managerial
[10].
Ray and Sahu (1989) propose a methodology to measure
KW productivity that entails three main steps [11]:
(1) Classify the types of knowledge work jobs;
(2) Determine relationships between those types; and
(3) develop appropriate productivity measurement and
evaluation models.
In the first step, jobs are classified into one of two types:
routine or repetitive jobs and non-routine or non-repetitive
jobs. In step two, relationships of the characteristics of jobs
to performance are established and indices are created that
will be used for the calculation of the final productivity
measure. Step three uses results from steps one and two to
develop a productivity measurement. The method is
applicable to both individuals and groups and considers
various criteria [12].
Davenport classified knowledge works based on two
significant dimensions of knowledge work:
(1) The level of interdependence whether the work is
performed by individuals or groups

3. TWO DIMENSIONAL MODEL

In this paper two features proposed to classify different
types of information. The first feature is volume of
information and the second feature is diversity of
information. Sometimes knowledge creates from large
amount of similar information, the first type of information,
in the proposed model. In this type of information human
productivity is not as well as machine productivity. People
process the information in their working memory with limited
capacity and it is difficult for them to interpret large amount
of information with small capacity of the working memory
[15]. Today there are many developed expert systems that can
process large amount of information. If the information is
similar, it does not need complex systems. The extraction of
rules from large amount of similar information is not
complex. In this type of information gathering and saving
information is the main challenge and not complex expert
systems are necessary.
The second type of information is high volume but diverse
information. Because of limitation of short memory capacity,
expert systems should be used. A simple system cannot
process diverse information. These types of information need
classification to group similar information. Some complex
system can do this and sometimes human mind should
categorize the information.
Categorization is the necessity of this type of information
processing and recognition of similarity for grouping
information is the main challenge of knowledge creation from
this type of information.
The third type of information is little similar information.
Rule extraction from low volume of information is difficult
and it needs more intelligence. It needs developed expert

233

systems or high IQ people to extract rules and knowledge

from little information. Correct rule extraction is the main
challenge and high intelligence is necessity of knowledge
creation from this type of information.
The fourth type of information is little and diverse
information. The processing of this type is really difficult and
it needs human mind and it needs creative and high IQ people.
People should create rules from little and diverse information.
They should have experience too. For this type of information
processing, organization should invest on hiring expert
people.

[7]

[8]

[9]
[10]
[11]

4. CONCLUSION

[12]

In this paper we presented a two dimensional model for

information classification. Two features used to categorize
information into four types. For types one the similar high
volume information, organization should invest on not so
developed expert systems to transform information into
knowledge. For type two, the diverse high volume
information, organization should have expert systems for
processing and they need human mind or developed system
to categorize information.
The type three is little but similar information.
Organizations for this type of information should invest on
developed expert systems or hire high IQ people. For type
four, the little diverse information the organization need to
hire creative and high IQ and experienced people to process
this type of information.
For future research another models of knowledge creation
like SECI model can be discussed to find more necessities
and challenges of each types of knowledge creation.

[13]

[14]
[15]

5. REFERENCES
Kebede, G., International Journal of Information Management,
30, pp. 416424, 2010.
[2] Edmunds, A., & Morris, A., The problem of information
overload in business organizations: A revew of the literature,
International Journal of Information Management, 20(1), pp.
1728, 2000.
[3] Nehari Talet, A. , et.al., the effect knowledge process on
customer knowledge expansion, The international journal of
knowledge, culture and change management, 10(2), pp. 181200, 2010.
[4] A. K.Nor Shahriza, H. Ramlah, Managers perception of
information management and the role of information and
knowledge managers: The Malaysian perspectives,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 28,
pp.114-127, 2008.
[1]

Hashemian N., et.al., A model for classification of knowledge

production through data processing, SWDSI,USA, Houston,
2011.
[6] Braganza, A., Rethinking the datainformationknowledge
hierarchy: towards a case-based model, International Journal of
Information Management, 24, pp. 347356, 2004.
[5]

234

Hashemian, N., Menhaj, M. B, What is knowledge and how it

can be evaluated?, Communications of the IBIMA,11, pp. 114122, 2009.
Drucker, P., Knowledge-worker productivity: the biggest
challenge, California Management Review, 41, pp.79-85,
1999.
Dove, R., The knowledge worker, Automotive Manufacturing
& Production,110, pp.8-26,1998.
Coates, J., Three models for white collar productivity
improvement, Industrial Management, pp.7-14,1986.
Ray, P.K. and Sahu, S., The measurement and evaluation of
white-collar productivity, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 9, pp.28-48, 1989.
Davenport, T. H., Thinking for a living: How to get better
performance and results from knowledge workers, Boston:
Harvard Business School Press, 2005. [13] Kruger, C.J.,
Johnson, R. D., Information management as an enabler of
knowledge management maturity: A South African
perspective, International Journal of Information Management
, 30, pp. 5767, 2010.
Weng, S.S., et.al, Ontology construction for information
classication, Expert Systems with Applications, 31, pp.1-12,
2006.
Solso, R., Cognitive psychology, Allyn & Bacon, Amazon
library, 1995.
Lucy L., Christina E., A Little Creativity Goes a Long Way:
An Examination of Teams, Engagement in Creative Processes,
Journal of Management, Vol. 30, PP. 453470, 2004.