Visual sense-making as an appropriate indicator for knowledge management when dealing with complex environments: first stage of a longitudinal case study of a non-governmental organization, Brazil
Measurement and assessment of knowledge management (KM) and learning must demonstrate how KM initiatives have contributed to making the organization more efficient and effective. Different environments require different approaches to management and therefore to measurement. This paper proposes that visual sense-making is an ideal measurement and assessment tool where there are high levels of uncertainty. Visual sense-making is predicated on sense-making and visual thinking. These terms are explored, particularly how they underpin the term visual sense-making as a means for addressing complexity. The distinction between complicated and complex environments is made. The value of using visual sense-making is discussed, as well as how it can be measured in the context of complexity. The paper uses a Brazilian NGO (Caatinga Association) as a backdrop to explain the main concepts proposed in the paper. This is the first stage of a longitudinal study where the SenseCatcher software has been used. It will show how the NGO can benefit by using communities of practice (CoPs) and the SenseCatcher tool to manage the complex environment it operates in. CoPs are the appropriate organizational structure to ensure agility for learning and knowledge creation in such environments.
Ashton, K. (2015) How to Fly a Horse: The Secret History of Creation, Invention, and Discovery. New York: Penguin Random House.
Blignaut, S. (2013) 5 Differences between complexity & systems thinking. More Beyond. Retrieved from (29, March, 2019) https://www.morebeyond.co.za/5-differences-between-complexity-systems-thinking/.
Borzillo, S., & Kaminska, R. (2011, December) Unravelling the dynamics of knowledge creation in communities of practice though complexity theory lenses. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9(4), 353-366.
CognitiveEdge. (2010-07-11) The Cynefin Framework. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8
Cross, N. (2001) Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. 17(3): 49-55.
De Liddo, A. (2008) A Process Memory Platform to Support Participatory Planning and Deliberation. (Doctoral dissertation, Polytechnic of Bari, 19 September 2008). Technical Report KMI-08-07, Knowledge Media Institute. The Open University, UK.
Diamond, S. (2013) The Visual Marketing Revolution: 26 Rules to Help Social Media Marketers Connect the Dots. Pearson Education.
Druckrey, I. (2012) Teaching to see: Modern Edward Tufte [Web video]. Retrieved from http://teachingtosee.org/film/TeachingToSee.html
Duarte, G. (2014) Fractal Narrative: About the Relationship Between Geometries and Technology and Its Impact on Narrative Spaces. transcript Verlag.
Foreman-Wernet, L. (2003) Rethinking Communication: Introducing the Sense-Making Methodology. In B. Dervin, L. Foreman-Wernet, & E. Lauterbac, Sense-Making methodology reader: Selected writings of Brenda Dervin (Chapter 1: 3-16). Cresski. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Glouberman, S., & Zimmerman, B. (2002) Complicated and Complex Systems: What Would Successful Reform of Medicare Look Like? Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada: Discussion Paper No. 8. Saskatoon.
Hofstadter, D. (1985) Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern. NY: Basic Books.
Jäger, J., Kluth, A., Schatz, A., & Bauernhansl, T. (2014) Complexity Patterns in the Advanced Complexity Management of Value Networks. Procedia CIRP, 17, 645-650.
Klein, G. (2013) Seeing What Others Don't: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights. PublicAffairs.
Koch, C., & Tsuchiya, N. (2007) Attention and Consciousness: Two Distinct Brain Processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(4), 16-22.
Kurzweil, R. (2013) How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed. New York: Penguin Books.
Macintosh, R., Maclean, D., Stacey, R., & Griff, D. (2013) Complexity and Organization: Readings and Conversations. Robert Macintosh, R. Donald Maclean, D. Ralph Stacey, R. Douglas Griffin, D. (2013). Complexity and Organization: Readings and Conversations. Routledge, (Stacey, 2016).
McCallum, R. (2003) Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment. Springer Science & Business Media.
Mehrabian, A. (2009) Nonverbal Communication. Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.
Ragab, M., & Arisha, A. (2013) Knowledge Management and Measurement: a Critical Review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), 873-901.
Reynolds, M., Gates, E., Hummelbrunner, R., Marra, M., & Williams, B. (2016, October) Towards Systemic Evaluation. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33.
Ryan, M.-L. (2012) Narration in Various Media. In P. Hühn et al. (ed). The Living Handbook of Narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press.
Shewchuk, G. (2014, September) Translating Domain Expertise through Visual Sensemaking. OCAD University, Master of Design in Strategic Foresight and Innovation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November) A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard business review, 85(11).
Stacey, R. D., & Mowles, C. (2016) Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics: the challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations (7th ed.). Harlow, England Pearson Education.
Teece, D. J. (2000) Managiing Knowledge Assets in Diverse Industrial Contexts. In D. Chauvel, Knowledge Horizons: the present and the promise of Knowledge Management (pp. 535-550). MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Varshney, L. R., & Sun, J. Z. (2013) Why do we perceive logarithmically? Significance, 10(1).
Ware, C. (2008) Visual Thinking for Design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Copyright (c) 2019 Rui Dos Santos Martins
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.The copyright of the articles published in this journal remains the property of the authors. For liability reasons, the title belongs to the Foundation for the Support of the Knowledge Management for Development Journal. The journal is published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike License. This journal is currently an open access journal as it has a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. From the BOAI definition  of "open access", we support the rights of users to "read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles." However, some of the content (2009-2012) is only available on the Taylor and Francis website. Within the next few months, this issue too will become available on the OJS.  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess