Visual

Version 1

Version 2

Version 3

Version 4

Data, information, knowledge, wisdom, and enlightenment are transformations of existence. Therefore, the traditional hierarchy is obsolete, as it does not represent the totality of the possibilities. These equations emphasize that point by showing how data, information, knowledge, and wisdom could be portrayed from a different perspective.

Version 5

Contrary to past understandings of systems of knowledge, the authors claim that there is no hierarchy among data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. One does not need to obtain them in a specific order. Depending on the situation, one may not even need to have all of them. For example, a new receptionist employed by an organization may not have any specific data about the customers but may have the wisdom required to manage customer relationships based on values instilled during the receptionist’s formative years. Hence, one can obtain information directly from an understanding of existence, without having to acquire any data enroute. In the same manner, one can create knowledge from data without having to create information as an intermediary. This is consistent with the premise of complexity theory that systems incorporate non-linear feedback; such transitions across state boundaries similarly take place in the cognitive system.

It is crucial to understand that it is the social interaction among people; established data, information, knowledge, and wisdom; and new data information, knowledge, and wisdom that will create valuable insights. Indeed, the cognitive base will help to create new data, information, knowledge, and wisdom, but it is the feedback engendered by these new data, information, knowledge, and wisdom that will enable cognitive creativity.

Newly developed or acquired knowledge can be used on an existing database to create new data, but can also lead to new information, knowledge, or even wisdom. Understanding is the power that generates new links among data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. New data can resonate with the knowledge base and lead to the creation of new wisdom. New knowledge can interact with old information and create a new understanding, which could mean the creation of new data, information, knowledge, or wisdom.

The higher the level of understanding that is required, the greater the chance that data, information, knowledge, and wisdom become tacit.

New definitions based on the new model:

Data is a basic interpretation of existence. It is a purely descriptive construct that requires a low (categorical) level of understanding of existence. B Information is viewed as a meaningful interpretation of existence, one that has a purpose. It is a connective understanding of existence. It requires a higher level of understanding than data, but a lower one than knowledge or wisdom. B Knowledge is here defined as a meaningful and procedural abstraction of existence. It has a purpose and is a procedural understanding of existence. Without knowledge, lower levels of abstraction of existence are not actionable. Knowledge requires a higher level of understanding than data and information, but a lower level than wisdom. B Wisdom is understood as a meaningful, procedural, and justified abstraction of existence based on experience. It has a purpose, relates to procedures, but it is also based on a coherent judgement of existence justified through experience. Wisdom therefore permits sound action and use of experience. Wisdom requires a higher level of understanding than data, information, and knowledge.

Overview

• There isn’t a consensus on what knowledge is.
• There is a consensus that there is a hierarchy among the concepts of data, information, and knowledge.
• That a process is done in order to transform one into another.
• It is through understanding that data is transformed into information, then into knowledge and eventually into wisdom. (Bellinger et al. (2004))
• "The real distinction among them is learning experience and understanding.”
• “Understanding is the power that generates new links among data, information, knowledge, and wisdom.”
• “Meta-knowledge is the understanding of how knowledge is converted into data, information, wisdom, or a more complex form of knowledge.”

Synthesized Definitions

The following definitions are attempts at synthesizing the different definitions of each term:

• Existence: “Existence describes the whole environment that humans can grasp and create data about. Data are a very basic processed outcome of human observation of existence. This idea of including existence in a more complete framework of knowledge is consistent with the ideas of the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, whose classic phrase ‘‘existence precedes essence’’ (and therefore any abstraction of it) is considered the essence of existentialism (Sartre, 1956; Philosophy Pages, 2006; Wikipedia, 2006a, b).”
• Data are considered to be unprocessed raw representations of reality.
• Information is considered to be data that has been processed in some meaningful ways.
• Knowledge is considered to be information that has been processed in some meaningful ways.
• Wisdom is considered to be knowledge that has been processed in some meaningful ways.
• Enlightenment: What is higher than wisdom? Buddhists refer to enlightenment as the awakening of beings. To awaken is to achieve a level of insight and understanding equal to that of the Buddhas (Van Hien Study Group, 2003). However, they make a distinction between awakening and supreme enlightenment, as there are many levels of awakening. It is not the intention of this paper to discuss metaphysics; however, it is useful in reaching the full scope of a hierarchy of knowledge. Enlightenment is the highest form of understanding. Therefore, it should be incorporated into a model that purports to represent a complete perspective on the hierarchy of knowledge. The result is illustrated in Figure 3.

Why Add Existence And Enlightenment

It is suggested in this paper that not having the two constructs of enlightenment and existence means not taking into account the appropriate borders of the knowledge system. Consequently, traditional models such as the knowledge pyramid are closed systems. Because knowledge management would profit from complexity theory (McElroy, 2000), a more coherent model of the knowledge system should be open

Michael Reflections

• I was skeptical of the new visual at first, because it’s more complex.
• But I like their thinking. First, we need a model that incorporates feedback loops (ie - social interactions).
• Second, they’ve provide good examples that show the model isn’t linear:
• We can have wisdom without data in a new realm??
• A new theory of something can cause us to create tools and experiments that create new data

Related Models

• Assimilation and accomodation