Conceprocity is an essentially pragmatic approach to the representation and organisation of explicit knowledge. It is based on the earlier work by the Canadian research centre LICEF (Paquette, 2010). Version 1.0 of Conceprocity was introduced on 09/05/2013. 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. The modeller decides the vocabulary and constructs a Conceprocity model in accordance with what can be very simple grammar rules. If the modeller is prepared to learn a little bit more about Conceprocity, then more sophisticated semiotics are available to her as she take advantage of more advanced or specific usage profiles.
2.1Why model personal knowledge conceptually?
We want to achieve models which are isomorphic with the situation that we are seeking to regulate or control. Why?
(Conant and Ashby, 1970) tell us that:
“The design of a complex regulator often includes the making of a model of the system to be regulated. The making of such a model has hitherto been regarded as optional, as merely one of many possible ways… A theorem is presented which shows, under very broad conditions, that any regulator that is maximally both successful and simple must be isomorphic with the system being regulated… Making a model is thus necessary. The theorem has the interesting corollary that the living brain, so far as it is to be successful and efficient as a regulator for survival, must proceed, in learning, by the formation of a model (or models) of its environment.”
Each of us needs to regulate our own working lives. Modelling for action requires conceptual modelling of the personal work system (Baskerville, 2011) which embodies:
-
The explicit elements of a person’s personal information.
and
-
The intentions and means of enacting the knowledge which governs the derivation and use of that personal information.
We need a modelling formalism for concepts and behavioural elements – processes acting on concepts – in the service of actors, notably ourselves.
The author’s pragmatic choice is to introduce a new modelling language: Conceprocity. This modelling language is intended to allow novice and experienced knowledge mapping workers to create a myriad of models within a variety of “usage profiles”. The purpose of these models may vary. Sometimes a model will represent a means of communication between stakeholders in a situation. Perhaps more often modelling will increase the understanding of a complex situation and lead to better learning by stakeholders.
Pragmaticism (following Pierce as collected by (Hartshorne, Weiss and Burks, 1931)) leads us to suggest:
-
As a consequence of (Conant and Ashby, 1970 op.cit.) we know that the absence of a model implies poor regulation and imperfect understanding.
-
Abductively, we conclude that we all have a personal work system and we must therefore have a model – but what is that model? Can we surface it, as individuals and as researchers? Surfacing this model is at the heart of my PhD research.
2.3Designing your working life: learning how to get things done better
The act of living our lives involves (inter alia):
-
Our working model: Our mental view of who we are and how we act
-
Our personal work system: how we act to get things done (Allen, 2003)
-
Our personal information management system: how we keep things found (Jones, 2007)
-
Our use of technology
2.4Example Conceprocity model
Figure . Doing the shopping. Source: author
This simple model is easy to criticise – but any model is better than the alternative, which is not none, but an inexplicit one! We also note that a shopping list without a list element is fairly meaningless. Conceprocity includes elements which are diagrammatic. It also permits lists to appear as a part of the model. In this case, the things we want to buy will appear in such a list.
An initial model is refined in use, in action.
2.5How we can design a better personal work and personal information management system
We can choose between:
-
Explicit personal information system design and scripting or mashup assembly. However, for most of us with our current state of learning this is unlikely to be an option.
-
Serendipitous bricolage: (Ciborra and Jelassi, 1994). This is the process of arriving at some working solution by means of assembling methods, tools and data which together work for us.
-
Guided learning
2.6Explicit design and serendipitous bricolage
My research largely takes the form of action research (design school) or observation (behaviour school) – see (Hevner, March, Park and Ram, 2004). The work of (Hevner and Chatterjee, 2010) and (Hevner, 2010) on design science in IS research, and of (Wand and Weber, 2002) on conceptual modelling and information systems have informed both this paper and the design of Conceprocity. To the extent that one potential use of Conceprocity is to conceptualise and therefore support the design of target personal information management systems, the design perspective identified by Hevner and his colleagues is perhaps sometimes appropriate. However, since we suspect that most personal information management systems are the result of serendipitous bricolage (Ciborra and Jelassi, 1994) rather than the product of deliberate design, it is the more behavioural perspective identified by Hevner which is also significant in the study of actual personal information management systems.
Share with your friends: |
