I think the DIKW model is fine for explaining the basic idea. Unfortunately, there is not always 100% agreement on what each part actually is.

I’ll use this explanation:
Data is symbols, information is processed data (who, what, where, when) while knowledge is expertise that answers “how” questions. You may also use wisdom to answer the “why”.

I think your “sense” part is important
– make sense of data = information
– make sense of information = knowledge
– make sense of knowledge = wisdom

The “knowledge” part is often context-sensitive (information applied in a certain context) while wisdom is usually reached after reflection and experience (if reached at all) and is often very subjective (I guess as we move from D to I to K to W it gets less objective and more subjective ?)

PKM itself will not make us any wiser, but it can *help us* become wiser by helping us *make sense* of the information and knowledge that we have. I like this part of your model !

However, it is important to note that the last, final step is not Share (as it seems like in your model), but USE !

Knowledge (or wisdom, for that matter) is of no value if it isn’t USED ! It doesn’t matter if YOU use it, or if you Share it and OTHERS use it, but the ultimate goal is to make Sense of the data and information so that it can be USED by someone (for something).

Well, at least this is *my* opinion

My 2 cents on this:
– http://www.ppcsoft.com/blog/km-3-1.asp

The value scale in the visual throws me off a little. It tells me that seeking = low value, sharing = high value and sensing is something in-between. A scale that starts at “lower” or “lowest” value to “higher” or “highest” seems more accommodating to the different perspectives and motives for the information. This might be what you’re indicating in the sense color gradient (indicating more value as the color fades). This post is more than low value to me even though I may not present and customize at this time.

“Whatever we make transparent is value-added information for others, especially if we do it consciously and well.” Good point. It’s also another form of value-add for you (and others) because you invite others into the synthesis process to help advance the idea.

And I think the idea of creating “challenges for organizations to help them learn” is the right one – it’s exactly what I’ve been doing for the last few years

But I’ve never made any headway when calling it ‘training’. I’ve never managed to persuade an organisation to do ‘collective training’ but I have project managed ‘business development’/’service development’/'innovation’ programmes.

I like Gilbert’s idea of the Black Box. It reminds me of the idea of a barium meal – feed some new skills/information to an organisation and record how fast and with what fidelity the signal reaches the bowels of the organisation…

Which I suppose is where I struggle with the word ‘training’ – or, more accurately, my clients do. (Training has long been a term of art for me.)

Training = input = measurable improvement in ability against target. This we’re talking about here is utterly different in terms of metrics. Training the organisation ~= development ~= increased responsiveness (with any ‘target’ likely to have unintended consequences).