A Working Model

1. A Working Model Mark Gregory ESC Rennes School of Business, France mark.gregory@esc-rennes.fr Director of Studies Prof. David Weir, University Campus Suffolk Supervisor Dr. Renaud Macgilchrist ESC Rennes

2. Personal data: a shopping list Table structure Columns: header gives meaning Rows

3. Presentation themes • The context of my research: personal information management systems • The motivation, justification and methodology for my research, including some contributions I hope to make as I answer my research question • A working model

4. The phenomenon: people keep and use data as they get their work done • The phenomenon I am investigating is the personal knowledge management of individual knowledge workers as they carry out their work • This constitutes a personal work system (Baskerville 2011) in which the primary systemic element is the worker, who interacts with her personal data as it is stored on and made available by means of information and communications technology • Baskerville calls the computer-specific element of this an individual information system

5. Personal information management within the personal work system • (Paul 2010) defines an information system as ICT in use • In (Gregory 2012) I identify the personal information management system and suggest that this is substantially the same thing as Baskerville’s IIS • There remain unresolved boundary issues here!

6. What do I mean by a PIMS? A personal information management system is constituted when someone uses ICT – here a spreadsheet – to store data which subsequently informs decisions or action. The “systemic” element – the knowledge-wielding, learning element of the system – is the person who uses the information. The information is filtered data associated with meaning, here “simple” column headings. But in fact there is nothing simple about this process of attributing meaning. How “meaningful” would this data be if the content and headings were in a natural language you didn’t understand?

7. My original two-part research question How do knowledge workers manage their personal information and knowledge? How can knowledge workers be helped to improve their personal knowledge management (PKM) by means of a useful and applicable teaching, learning and evaluation framework?

8. A revised formulation What is the contribution of personal information management systems PIMS to the working model and personal work system of knowledge workers?

9. Personal work systems • For each knowledge worker (Drucker 1999): • We posit the existence of a Personal Work System PWS that is individual to each person • That PWS is supported by a Personal Information Management System PIMS: (Gregory & Descubes 2011a, b) • Broadly the same as Individual Information Systems IIS supporting personal and work-related Work Systems: (Baskerville 2011) • Very similar to a User Generated Information System UGIS: (DesAutels 2011)

10. Knowledge representation: KR Existing KR techniques vary in their: Expressiveness Precision Ease of comprehension The more abstract, the more precise we can be in expression and manipulation (potentially even by machine); but less generally applicable, and more difficult to learn Knowledge workers cannot really survive only with one KR approach Especially if that is « just » natural language

11. Conceprocity: Concept Process Reciprocity Conceprocity – concept <-> process reciprocity – is a visual and textual language and toolset intended for capturing, expressing, communicating and co-creating models of topic areas of domain knowledge by domain experts or learners Semi-formal semantics – human emphasis, used when investigating problem situations; but grammar rules exist and are partially enforced The first contribution of this PhD

12. Main symbols

13. Example KR: a Conceprocity map of planning and doing the shopping Source: author

14. An abductive insight • It is a surprising fact that people get things done despite not having an explicit regulatory model nor an obvious personal information management system • Possible abductive explanation: people must and do have implicit regulators in the form of so-called mental models which are homomorphic (somewhat isomorphic) with the reality • Informed and self-managed action and process • So what are the models and what PIMS have they de facto constructed?

15. “Reality” and models: discovering the PWS Life and work of individual: task focus The conceptual model of a person’s individual information system Concept map Data and Information model Analysis Analysed system:conceptual model Assembling tools or creating them: Data / Presentation /Integration [ / Scripting] The work system and the information system used by the individual Synthesis Personal Information Management System supporting Personal Work System 15

16. Methodology and techniques Structured auto-ethnography: telling my own action-story as I seek to understand and to prototype better techniques Re-viewing the literature of personal information management PIM by means of fuzzy concept maps (Leximancer), demonstrating the gap – no systems view Mentored action research with research participants

17. Research data analysis Semi-automatic semantic analysis using Leximancer This will permit a more objective categorisation process and even give rise to emergent personal ontology Data to be analysed is text: Collected auto-ethnographically by Research Mentor and Research Partners Collected also from students Conceprocity maps: individual and co-authored

18. A working model

21. An analysis of the PhD journal

22. Existing and developing contributions from this Ph.D. • Initial diffusion • Eleven conference papers • Website: www.markrogergregory.net, designed to draw in volunteers • Conceprocity’s two dialects • CAPRICE: for students • Empirical investigation in S1 2013/4 as MSc students had to model the concepts and relationships present in an academic paper concerning e-commerce – loose guidance • S2: tight guidance to PGE IS Minor students • CAPRILOPE: for practitioners; empirical work with research volunteers as I and they model their personal work systems

23. Planned contributions from this Ph.D. • Conceptualisation and illustration of the individual working models of certain individuals, starting with me • Analysis of unschooled and schooled Conceprocity mapping by students • Leading to a synthesised statement of requirements for effective PIM tools based on action research outcomes • Practically relevant teaching, learning, mentoring and self-evaluation approach • The basis for my subsequent research, teaching and consultancy • Recognise shortcomings in this research and set out a programme for later research – this was the abduction, now what about other logics of enquiry?

24. Next steps: six more months to complete my research • Intervening minimally (“loose”) and significantly (“tight”) in concept mapping carried out by students; S1 & S2 2013/4 • Intervening by means of mentoring of research volunteers; May to September 2014 • Federated by a web-based community of practice, www.teamkim.org (currently under construction; full availability late spring 2014) • Limited further auto-ethnography

25. Presentation references Abecker, A., Decker, S., 1999. Organizational memory: Knowledge acquisition, integration, and retrieval issues. XPS-99: Knowledge-Based Systems. Survey and Future Directions 113–124. Alter, S., 1999. A general, yet useful theory of information systems. Communications of the AIS 1, 3. Alter, S., 2008. Defining information systems as work systems: implications for the IS field. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 448–469. Alter, S., 2010. Work system concepts as the core for teaching Information Systems and Operations Management. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings 533. Argyris, C., Schön, D.A., 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. Ashby, W.R., 1956. An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman & Hall London. Avison, D.E., Lau, F., Myers, M.D., Axel Nielsen, P., 1999. Action research. Communications of the ACM 42, 97. Baskerville, R.L., 2011. Individual information systems as a research arena. Eur J InfSyst 20, 251–254. doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.8 Baskerville, R.L., Wood-Harper, A.T., 1996. A critical perspective on action research as a method for information systems research. J InfTechnol 11, 235–246. doi:10.1080/026839696345289 Checkland, P., 1991. From framework through experience to learning: the essential nature of action research. Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions 397–403. Checkland, P., Poulter, J., 2006. Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology, and Its Use Practitioners, Teachers and Students. John Wiley & Sons. Conant, R.C., Ashby, W.R., 1970. Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system. International journal of systems science 1, 89–97. DesAutels, P., 2011. UGIS: Understanding the nature of user-generated information systems. Business Horizons 54, 185–192. Douglas, M., Peppard, J., 2013. Theorizing Data, Information and Knowledge constructs and their inter-relationship for effective Data Analytics. Drucker, P.F., 1999. Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge. The knowledge management yearbook 2000–2001. Flood, R.L., 1998. Action Research and the Management and Systems Sciences. Systemic Practice and Action Research 11, 79–101. doi:10.1023/A:1022917022601 Flood, R.L., 2001. The relationship of “systems thinking” to action research. Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice 133–144. Georgiou, I., 2007. Thinking through systems thinking. Routledge London. Gregory, M., 2012. A reflection on Personal Information Management Systems. Presented at the PIM Workshop 2012, part of CHI 2012, Seattle, WA. Gregory, M., Descubes, I., 2011a. Structured reflection in Information Systems Teaching and Research. Presented at the UKAIS 2011: Proceedings of the 2011 conference of the United Kingdom Academy for Information Systems, St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, April 2011, Oxford, England. Gregory, M., Descubes, I., 2011b. Understanding PIMS: Personal Information Management Systems. Research Journal of Economics, Business and ICT 2011, 31–37. Gregory, M., Kehal, M., Descubes, I., 2012. Mentored action learning applied to personal knowledge management - a research in progress. Presented at the UKAIS 2012: Proceedings of the 2012 conference of the United Kingdom Academy for Information Systems, New College, Oxford, March 2012 (forthcoming), Oxford, GB. Kettinger, W.J., Li, Y., 2010. The infological equation extended: towards conceptual clarity in the relationship between data, information and knowledge. Eur J InfSyst 19, 409–421. doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.25 Kohonen, T., 2001. Self-organizing maps. Springer. Kohonen, T., Kaski, S., Lagus, K., Salojarvi, J., Honkela, J., Paatero, V., Saarela, A., 2000. Self organization of a massive document collection. Neural Networks, IEEE Transactions on 11, 574–585. Landauer, T.K., Foltz, P.W., Laham, D., 1998. An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25, 259–284. doi:10.1080/01638539809545028 Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, USA. Paquette, G., 2010. Visual Knowledge and Competency Modeling - From Informal Learning Models to Semantic Web Ontologies. IGI Global., Hershey, PA. Paul, R.J., 2010. Motivation for Writing the Paper What an Information System Is, and Why Is It Important to Know This: Why I Give Lectures and Seminars. Journal of Computing and Information Technology 18. Popper, K.R., 1979. Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Clarendon Press. Riel, M., 2010. Understanding Action Research, Center For Collaborative Action Research. [WWW Document]. URL http://cadres.pepperdine.edu/ccar/define.html (accessed 5.4.10).