There is a good deal of criticism of the data, information, knowledge, wisdom model of knowledge, which is sometimes called the DIKW hierarchy but I prefer to call it the ‘pyramid to wisdom’. Most of the criticism says the model is too simple. I wonder, however, if the model has some use. As usual it is useful to return to source documents.

In knowledge management circles Russell Ackoff is usually credited as the originator of the hierarchy, and indeed published two seminal papers, the first in 1989. However Milan Zeleny published a paper two years before Ackoff, and Harlan Cleveland published a paper in 1982. Both of these authors mention the hierarchy and provide examples.

I personally find the explanations all authors provide to be quite useful. For example Zelany says - “While data and information are piecemeal, partial and atomized by their very nature, knowledge and wisdom are ‘holistic’ related to and expressed through systemic network patterns, integrative by definition”. He goes on to say – “To manage wisely implies knowing why to do something; to manage effectively implies knowing what to do; to manage efficiently implies knowing how to do it (and to ‘muddle through’ implies nothing and having ‘lots of data’ around)”. I would be surprised if these descriptions do not resonate with you.

Ackoff puts together a similar construct. For him knowledge is contained in instructions and constitutes know-how. Information is contained in descriptions, in answers to questions that begin with such words as who, what, where, when, and how many. He says – “The difference between data and information is their usefulness – functional, not structural”. Again I would be surprised if these descriptions do not resonate with you.

So what is the problem with the pyramid to wisdom? First we should not lose sight that is just a model. A model is a simplified representation of a phenomenon and its interactions (see this page for a more detailed explanation). Yes it has some shortcomings, but when we go back to original sources and read the explanations it aids understanding.

Second, the pyramid to wisdom is useful because it makes it clear there is a relationship between data, information, knowledge and understanding. It is an easy model to introduce to senior management when first introducing a knowledge management initiative to an organisation, as it depicts a possible strategy for where emphasis might be placed. For example, it can be used to highlight that technology solutions focus on the data and information components, while people initiatives are needed for the knowledge, understanding and wisdom triumvirate. This idea is depicted below (with thanks to Patrick Byrne ). Note that software tools are used to produce a structured data report, but a human is needed to write or tell the story.

So I think the pyramid to wisdom has its place, particularly to aid understanding. I think the model has been unfairly discredited because people do not take the time to view it with the original explanations and intent, and instead use it by itself. I think reading source documents and understanding the authors’ intent matters.

Regards, Graham

References:

Ackoff, Russell, "From data to wisdom", Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, vol. 16, pp. 3-9, 1989.

Ackoff, Russell, "On learning and systems that facilitate it", Center for Quality of Management Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 27-35, 1996.

Cleveland, Harland , "Information as Resource," The Futurist, pp. 34-39, 1982.

Zeleny, Milan, "Management Support Systems: Towards Integrated Knowledge Management," Human Systems Management, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 59-70. 1987.