Beyond Half-Knowledge: A Holistic Approach to Knowledge Management

A glass prism dispersing a beam of white light into a spectrum of rainbow colors on a dark background, symbolizing how breaking down knowledge into multiple dimensions leads to deeper and more nuanced understanding. — Bbreaking down knowledge into multiple dimensions leads to deeper and more nuanced understanding.

The concept of "half-knowledge" (Halbwissen) has long been recognized as problematic in knowledge management discourse, yet our understanding of knowledge completeness remains overly simplistic. In 2009, Prof. Dr. Carsten Deckert explored the dangers of half-knowledge through three knowledge types: knowing-what, knowing-how, and knowing-why. However, this framework, while valuable, presents a somewhat binary view of knowledge acquisition. This article proposes a more nuanced approach that recognizes knowledge as multi-dimensional, introducing the concept of "partial knowledge" (Teilwissen) and exploring how answering multiple W-questions creates a more comprehensive and precise understanding. In today's complex information landscape, where organizations struggle with knowledge fragmentation, a holistic framework for evaluating knowledge completeness has never been more critical.

From Half-Knowledge to Partial Knowledge:

The traditional concept of "half-knowledge" (Halbwissen) suggests a binary state—either knowledge is complete or incomplete. This oversimplification fails to capture the multifaceted nature of knowledge. Instead, "partial knowledge" (Teilwissen) recognizes that knowledge exists along multiple dimensions, with varying degrees of completeness across different aspects. Complete knowledge (Vollwissen) would theoretically answer all relevant W-questions (who, what, where, when, why, how) to create a comprehensive understanding.

The concept of "half-knowledge" (Halbwissen) treats knowledge in a binary fashion—viewing it as simply complete or incomplete—which risks oversimplification. Instead, recognizing "partial knowledge" (Teilwissen) acknowledges that understanding is multidimensional: knowledge can be more or less developed across different aspects, allowing for a more nuanced and comprehensive perspective. This shift from binary to dimensional thinking encourages deeper insight. — "half-knowledge “ v.s. "partial knowledge"

The W-Questions Knowledge Framework:

Building upon Deckert's three knowledge types (knowing-what, knowing-how, knowing-why), this article expands the framework to include additional dimensions through W-questions: who, what, where, when, why, how, and to what end. Each question addresses a different aspect of knowledge, from ontology (what) to causality (why), from methodology (how) to contextual factors (where/when) and stakeholders (who). The completeness of knowledge can be measured by how many of these questions are adequately answered within a specific context.

A diagram shows seven knowledge dimensions, each linked to its respective W-question: - Who: Stakeholders - What: Ontology - Where: Contextual Factors (Location) - When: Contextual Factors (Time) - Why: Causality - How: Methodology - To what end: Purpose or Intent Each W-question addresses a different aspect of knowledge—ranging from ontology ("what") and causality ("why"), to methodology ("how"), contextual factors ("where"/"when"), stakeholders ("who"), and ultimately the purpose or intended outcomes ("to what end") — Seven knowledge dimensions: Who, What, Where, When:, Why, "to what end"

Theoretical Foundation: Beyond the Three E's of Knowledge

Deckert's original framework identified three core functions of knowledge—recognition (Erkennen), expectation (Erwarten), and explanation (Erklären)—corresponding to knowing-what, knowing-how, and knowing-why. This section will expand this foundation by examining how additional dimensions enhance our understanding:

The Ontological Dimension (What):

Understanding the nature and classification of objects, situations, and concepts. This dimension establishes the fundamental identity of knowledge elements and creates taxonomies that allow for recognition and categorization.

The Methodological Dimension (How):

Encompassing processes, procedures, and techniques. Unlike Deckert's "expectation" framing, this dimension focuses more broadly on methods, acknowledging that knowing-how extends beyond prediction to include implementation and execution.

The Causal Dimension (Why):

Providing explanations and rationales that connect actions with outcomes. This dimension adds depth through understanding underlying principles, theories, and models that explain relationships between phenomena.

The Contextual Dimensions (Where/When):

Situating knowledge within specific environments, cultures, and time periods. These dimensions recognize that knowledge validity often depends on context—what works in one situation may fail in another.

The Stakeholder Dimension (Who):

Identifying sources, owners, and users of knowledge. This dimension acknowledges the social nature of knowledge construction and the importance of understanding who contributes to, controls, and benefits from specific knowledge.

The Purposive Dimension (To What End):

Understanding goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. This dimension connects knowledge to purpose, highlighting that knowledge acquisition should serve specific aims within organizations.

The Precision-Tolerance Model of Knowledge

Drawing inspiration from concepts in signal processing and mathematics mentioned in your notes, this section will develop a new model for understanding knowledge completeness:

Knowledge Precision through Multiple Dimensions:

Similar to how Archimedes achieved greater precision in calculating pi by increasing the number of points on his polygon, knowledge becomes more precise as more W-questions are answered. Each dimension adds a new perspective that refines understanding.

The Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem Applied to Knowledge:

Just as this theorem establishes how precisely a signal can be reconstructed based on sampling rate, knowledge can be adequately reconstructed even with some missing elements if enough dimensions are covered. This creates a "knowledge tolerance threshold"—the minimum number of W-questions that must be answered to achieve functional understanding.

Cultural and Contextual Filters:

Knowledge passes through various filters that affect its interpretation and application. These include cultural contexts, disciplinary paradigms, organizational cultures, and individual mental models. Each filter introduces potential distortions that must be accounted for in knowledge management.

Practical Applications: Assessment and Improvement

This section will explore practical applications of the expanded framework:

Knowledge Mapping Using W-Questions:

Techniques for auditing existing organizational knowledge by systematically assessing coverage across all dimensions. This creates a "knowledge heat map" identifying areas of relative strength and weakness.

A color-coded heatmap table visually displaying percentage scores representing knowledge levels across four departments—Sales, R&D, HR, and IT—assessed against five key questions: “What”, “Why”, “When”, “Where”, and “How”. Each cell is shaded from light (low percentage/weakness) to dark (high percentage/strength), highlighting areas where organizational knowledge is strong or needs improvement. This visual supports techniques for auditing existing knowledge coverage across all critical dimensions. — A heatmap table visually displaying percentage scores representing knowledge levels across four departments—Sales, R&D, HR, and IT

Targeted Knowledge Development:

Strategies for developing knowledge in specific dimensions based on identified gaps. Different approaches are required for different dimensions—experiential learning for how-knowledge versus theoretical education for why-knowledge.

Knowledge Transfer Protocols:

Frameworks for ensuring knowledge transmission addresses all relevant dimensions, particularly when transferring expertise from departing employees or external experts.

Decision Support Using Dimensional Analysis:

Methods for evaluating the quality and completeness of knowledge used in decision-making by analyzing dimensional coverage and identifying potential blind spots.

Challenges and Solutions in Implementing a Dimensional Approach

This section addresses potential obstacles

The Challenge of Tacit Knowledge:

Strategies for addressing dimensions that resist explicit articulation, such as experiential how-knowledge or intuitive why-knowledge. Techniques include storytelling, apprenticeship models, and simulation-based learning.

Cognitive Biases and Dimensional Blindness:

How cognitive biases lead organizations to overemphasize certain dimensions (often what-knowledge) while neglecting others (often why-knowledge or contextual dimensions). Methods for counteracting these tendencies include diverse teams, structured questioning protocols, and metacognitive training.

Technological Supports and Limitations:

How knowledge management systems can be designed to prompt for and capture multi-dimensional knowledge. Discussion of current limitations in AI and automation approaches that often struggle with causal and contextual dimensions.

Cross-Cultural Knowledge Integration:

Challenges in reconciling different cultural emphases on knowledge dimensions. Some cultures prioritize contextual knowledge (where/when/who) while others emphasize methodological knowledge (how) or causal knowledge (why).

Integration with Existing Knowledge Management Concepts

This section connects the dimensional framework with established KM concepts:

Communities of Practice:

How CoPs naturally develop multi-dimensional knowledge and can be structured to ensure broader dimensional coverage.

Knowledge Creation Models:

Integrating the dimensional approach with Nonaka and Takeuchi's SECI model (socialization, externalization, combination, internalization).

Organizational Learning:

Connection to single-loop learning (improving how-knowledge) versus double-loop learning (developing why-knowledge and purpose knowledge).

Knowledge Architecture:

How knowledge repositories and systems can be structured to capture and present multi-dimensional knowledge effectively.

Practical Implications

Organizations can implement this dimensional approach through several concrete steps:

Conduct a W-Questions Audit: Evaluate existing documentation, training materials, and processes against all W-questions to identify dimensional gaps.
Develop Dimension-Specific Capture Methods: Create tailored approaches for eliciting different knowledge dimensions—use case studies for contextual knowledge, process mapping for methodological knowledge, and root cause analysis for causal knowledge.
Implement "Dimensional Thinking" in Decision Processes: Before making significant decisions, explicitly review coverage across all knowledge dimensions, with particular attention to commonly neglected dimensions.
Design Multi-Dimensional Knowledge Transfer: When experts leave or new members join teams, ensure knowledge transfer addresses all dimensions, not just explicit what-knowledge and how-knowledge.
Create Dimensional Balance Metrics: Develop organization-specific indicators to measure knowledge completeness across dimensions and track improvement over time.

Conclusion

Moving beyond the simplistic concept of "half-knowledge" toward a dimensional understanding of "partial knowledge" offers organizations a more nuanced and effective approach to knowledge management. By systematically addressing multiple W-questions, organizations can achieve greater precision in their knowledge assets while also determining acceptable tolerance thresholds for knowledge gaps. This approach acknowledges that complete knowledge is an aspirational goal rather than a realistic expectation, but provides practical methods for continuously improving knowledge quality and completeness. As organizational environments grow increasingly complex, this dimensional approach offers a path toward more robust, adaptable knowledge management that better serves strategic objectives.

Diagram illustrating how, by systematically addressing multiple W-questions, organizations transform fragmented knowledge—shown as unconnected grey dots—into integrated knowledge—shown as connected blue dots—achieving greater precision and defining tolerance thresholds for gaps. — Transform fragmented knowledge to integrated knowledg

References

Deckert, C. (2009). "Knowledge Watch - Gefährliches Halbwissen." Retrieved from https://www.carsten-deckert.de/2009/10/28/knowledge-watch-gefährliches-halbwissen/

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press.

Shannon, C. E. (1949). "Communication in the Presence of Noise." Proceedings of the IRE, 37(1), 10-21.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley.

Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. University of Chicago Press.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press.

Eraut, M. (2000). "Non-formal learning and tacit knowledge in professional work." British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(1), 113-136.

Gourlay, S. (2006). "Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation: A Critique of Nonaka's Theory." Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1415-1436.

Tsoukas, H. (2003). "Do we really understand tacit knowledge?" In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management (pp. 410-427). Blackwell Publishing.