Knowledge, Information and Data

Literature & personal standpoint

Knowledge, Information and Data. They are frequently used in substitution for one another do they all roughly speaking mean the same thing or are they all words with very separate meanings in their own right? My pre-research understanding was that data is what you have before the information from the data becomes interpreted which in turn becomes knowledge.

Knowledge is the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning (WordNet Search - 3.0).

Information is knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction or a collection of facts from which conclusions can be drawn (WordNet Search - 3.0)

Data is a collection of facts from which conclusions can be drawn (WordNet Search - 3.0)

Why is KM and IT/IS so closely interlinked. I can not help but wonder whether the information held by the technology or System has something to do with this. IT has often been referred to as an enabler of KM. I guess without the technology or system to hold the information it would not be so easy to manage the knowledge, but is this Knowledge Management or Information Management? What about quality? We spend a lot of time refining and optimising our organisations data to ensure that it is credible, factual and not misleading information being used. One would assume that in turn this affects our Knowledge?

Technology and systems help organisations to manipulate and easily allow for the data to act in the way we require. Do these differing manipulations form part of the strategy that is managing our knowledge? I have a suspicion that they do.

(Melkas & Harmaakorpi, 2008) believe “Definitions of information have followed two patterns, either:
(1) Focused on information (and knowledge) being fundamentally different from data (which is called the hierarchical view); or
(2) Emphasised that some knowledge is needed before data and information can be created.”

My initial interpretation appears to be the reverse of (2) and my researched definitions seem to agree with (1) “Information is knowledge. As I described earlier (Melkas & Harmaakorpi, 2008) agree with the fact that information and knowledge are used interchangeably. (Melkas & Harmaakorpi, 2008) however cites that Huang et al (1999) “note that in practice, managers tend to differentiate information from data intuitively”. In my experience I disagree with this and find that managers use these words interchangeably to mean the same thing.

“Data – numbers, for instance – are the factual content of information. Only meaningful information can be the basis for purposeful action. When data are put in a meaningful context and processed, they become information” (Melkas & Harmaakorpi, 2008) cited (Lillrank, 1997, 2003). I agree with this statement. However in addition it is important to note that data may have different meaning to different people. For example an NI number may mean something to an individual who is into fraud, but nothing to me.

“Information transforms into a component of knowledge, when it is analysed critically and its underlying structure is understood in relation to other pieces of information and conceptions about how the world works” (Melkas & Harmaakorpi, 2008) cited (cf, Miller et al, 2001).
(Melkas & Harmaakorpi, 2008) provide useful explanations into why the words knowledge and information may be used interchangeably for a common purpose. That is when used within different levels of the organisation. For example I might generate a data extract from the HR database for the purpose of diversity statistics for the board of directors, however before it is presented to them, it has to be made meaningful. Short explanations and comparisons drawn from tacit knowledge may be made to make the data meaningful. When the board of directors receive the data combined with tacit knowledge, to them it may only appear to be data. However if this information was sent to recruitment they would view it as information on which they could base informed decisions.

(Melkas & Harmaakorpi, 2008) cite Miller et al (2001, p. 365) definitions as follows:

Data: A representation of an object

Information: The aggregation of data into something that has meaning (semantics) through interpretation by human or automated processes.

Knowledge: A process for arriving at a solution to a problem, using knowledge to asses and judge information.

To finalise, in my view it appears that for most of these definitions it depends on how your role (i.e. administrator, defrauder, or director) needs to perceive the data, information or knowledge that will determine how you render it.


Theory in Action

In my experience the words data and information are used interchangeably to refer to data. For example, If managers require an extract from the HR database it is often referred to as information. E.g. “I need some information about the male to female ratio in the organisation” However I believe this is data not information.

Using the example of an HR database we can say that it comprises of data like NI number, sickness records, and Next of kin details. However if I remove the ‘meaningful context’ i.e. employee names and any other fraudulent capable data then it is merely meaningless data to an individual who wants to commit fraud which can provide no information to them. However this unidentifiable data still means something to someone. For example, myself and the organisation that created the database. For if they wish to support my technical queries regarding its structure over the phone they will need an identical system to reflect any errors on. So you see that the data provides meaningful information to someone.

If the error is replicated on the copy my database by the technical support team and not on their default copy they can deduce what the error is and understand why it is happening. This then adds to their knowledge of how the database works and can be retrieved if need be in the future. If they document this find then that is information about how the database works. “Information can be created only after there is knowledge” (Melkas & Harmaakorpi, 2008)

Reflection & Collective Learning

Following the write up of this article I made a conscious effort to ensure that I used the correct words to reflect the correct meaning. I soon realised how difficult this is and ended up relaxing back into my old ways, however upon reflection if these words are used interchangeably because of your role when referring to the knowledge, information or data, then surely in a conversational context it does not matter as long as the knowledge, information or data collector has the correct perceived understanding of what you are trying to imply?