An essential problem of 'knowledge management' is the impossibility of codifying 'knowledge' which is embedded in human agents. It can never be straightforward for members of an organization to share what they know with one another. Such a process might be facilitated, but would be difficult to 'manage'. In recognition of this, organizations have sought ways to support knowledge sharing processes, ranging from document-based repositories to on-going mentor/trainee relationships. From day to day, all individuals will need to make choices relating to their organizational roles. A need to recgonize the element of choice and judgment available to an individual requires an ability to distinguish and discriminate between different categories of argument or assertion. When attempting to deal with problems, people are capable of using multi-valued logic in a process of creating assertions. It follows, therefore, that any support mechanism based only on bi-valued logic might serve to constrain and inhibit exercise of judgment. Using four-valued logic, it is possible to codify, not knowledge, but categories of argument/assertion. By this means, improved support may be provided for a knowledge-sharing environment, i.e. with a purpose to support knowledge management processes. In this paper, the authors draw on previous research in contextual analysis, complex methods of inquiry and paraconsistent logic in order to develop these ideas. A model of four-valued logic is described and applied for the purpose of categorising arguments.
|Title of host publication||Proceedings of the 7th european conference on knowledge management|
|Place of Publication||Reading|
|Publisher||Academic Conferences Limited|
|Number of pages||7|
|Publication status||Published - 2006|