View source for DIKW pyramid

{{short description|Data, information, knowledge, wisdom hierarchy}}
{{in process}}
{{update|date = November 2024}}
{{use mdy dates|date = November 2024}}
[[File:DIKW Pyramid.svg|thumb|A standard representation of the pyramid form of DIKW models, from 2007 and earlier.<ref name=Rowley/><ref name = BaskaradaKoronios2013/><!--Each step up the pyramid creates value based on the initial data, and can be used to answer high-level questions. THIS CONTRADICTORY WITH FOLLOWING; HIDDEN UNTIL CITATION-SUPPORTED.-->]]
<!--Fully elaborated citations appear in main body, and in shortened form in lead.--> 
The '''DIKW pyramid''', also known variously as the '''knowledge pyramid''',<!--ADDED BECAUSE IN ROWLEY.--> '''knowledge hierarchy''', '''information hierarchy''',<ref name=Rowley/>{{rp|163}} '''DIKW hierarchy''', '''wisdom hierarchy''', '''data pyramid''', and '''information pyramid''',{{cn|date = November 2024}} sometimes also stylized as a chain,<ref name=Zeleny2/>{{rp|15}}<ref name=Lievesly/> refer to models of possible [[structural]] and [[Function model|functional]] relationships between a set of components—often four, [[data]], [[information]], [[knowledge]], and [[wisdom]]—models that had antecedents prior to the 1980s.<ref>This includes from [[Mortimer Adler]] in 1970, see Adler, ''The Time of Our Lives,'' op. cit.</ref> In the latter years of that decade, interest in the models grew after explicit presentations and discussions, including from [[Milan Zeleny]], [[Russell Ackoff]], and [[Robert W. Lucky]].<ref name="Zeleny"/><ref name="Ackoff"/><ref name=":0" /> Subsequent important discussions extended along theoretical and practical lines into the coming decades.<!--EARLIER TEXT, UNSURE IF OF ANY VALUE: where the claim is made by some that deep understanding of a subject emerges through these four qualitative stages.--><ref name="Zins">{{cite journal | last = Zins | first = Chaim | title = Conceptual Approaches for Defining Data, Information, and Knowledge | journal = Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology | volume = 58 | issue = 4 | pages = 479–493 | date = 22 January 2007 | url = http://www.success.co.il/is/zins_definitions_dik.pdf | doi = 10.1002/asi.20508 | access-date = 7 January 2009 }}</ref><ref name=Rowley>{{Cite journal | first = Jennifer | last = Rowley | title = The Wisdom Hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW Hierarchy | journal = Journal of Information and Communication Science | volume = 33 | issue = 2 | year = 2007 | pages = 163–180 | doi = 10.1177/0165551506070706 | s2cid = 17000089 | url = https://typeset.io/papers/the-wisdom-hierarchy-representations-of-the-dikw-hierarchy-3ivs6n0ccz | access-date = November 9, 2024 }}</ref>{{update after|2024|11|10}}

While debate continues as to actual meaning of the component terms of DIKW-type models, and the actual nature of their relationships—including occasional doubt being cast over any simple, linear, unidirectional model—even so they have become very popular visual representations in use by business, the military, and others.{{cn|date = November 2024}} Among the academic and popular, not all versions of the DIKW-type models include all four components (earlier ones excluding data, later ones excluding or downplaying wisdom, and several including additional components{{fact|date = November 2024}}<!--WHILE A GOOD REFERENCE, THE EARLIER APPEARING BASKARADA & KORONIOS IS A PRIMARY SOURCE WITH SPECIFIC FOCUS, AND DOES NOT AT ALL SUPPORT THE PRECEDING SENTENCE.--> (for instance Ackoff inserting "understanding" before and Zeleny adding "enlightenment" after the wisdom component).<ref name="Ackoff"/><ref name=Zeleny2/>{{rp|14}} In addition, DIKW-type models are no longer always presented as pyramids, instead also as a [[chart]] or framework (e.g., by Zeleny),<ref name=Zeleny2/>{{rp|14}} as flow diagrams (e.g., by Liew, and by Chisholm et al.),<ref name=Liew2007/><ref name=Chisholm/><ref name=ChooDetlorTurnbull2000/> and sometimes as a [[continuum (theory)|continuum]] (e.g., by Choo et al.).<ref name=ChooDetlorTurnbull2000/>{{verification needed|date = November 2024}}

==Short description==
As Rowley noted in 2007, the DIKW model "is often quoted, or used implicitly, in definitions of data, information and knowledge in the information management, information systems and knowledge management literatures, but [as of that date] there ha[d] been limited direct discussion of the hierarchy".<ref name=Rowley/> Reviews of textbooks and a survey of scholars in relevant fields indicate that there was not a consensus as to definitions used in the model as of that date,<ref name=Rowley/><ref name="Zins"/> and as reviewed by Liew in that year, even less "in the description of the processes that transform components lower in the hierarchy into those above them".<ref name=Liew2007>{{cite journal | last = Liew | first = Anthony | title = Understanding Data, Information, Knowledge And Their Inter-Relationships | journal = [[Journal of Knowledge Management Practice]] | volume = 8 | issue = 2 |date=June 2007 | url = http://www.tlainc.com/articl134.htm | access-date = 9 November 2024 }}</ref>{{update after|2024|11|10}}

Zins work, published in 2007—from studies in 2003-2005 that documented "130 definitions of data, information, and knowledge formulated by 45 scholars", published in 2007—to suggest that the data–information–knowledge components of DIKW refer to a class of no less than five models, as a function of whether data, information, and knowledge are each conceived of as ''subjective'', ''objective'' (what Zins terms, "universal" or "collective") or both.<ref name="Zins" /> In Zins' usage, subjective and objective "are not related to arbitrariness and truthfulness, which are usually attached to the concepts of subjective knowledge and objective knowledge".<ref name="Zins" /> [[Information science]], Zins argues, studies data and information, but not knowledge, as knowledge is an internal (subjective) rather than an external (universal–collective) phenomenon.<ref name="Zins" />

==Representations==
=== Graphical representation ===
[[File:US DoD KM Pyramid.jpg|thumb| A representation of the DIKW pyramid, as it is purported to have evolved in the [[Department of Defense]], author and date of origin unknown, traceable only to 2022.<ref>{{cite web | author = Badminton, Nikolas | date = 2022 | title = Nikolas Badminton's Post | work = LinkedIn.com | url = https://www.linkedin.com/posts/futuristnikolasbadminton_eventprofs-activity-6990981032346865664-bbfG | access-date = 9 November 2024}}</ref>{{cn|date = November 2024}}]]

DIKW is a [[hierarchical]] model often depicted as a pyramid, sometimes as a chain, with ''data'' at its base and ''wisdom'' at its apex (or chain-beginning and -end).<ref name="Rowley"/><ref name="Wallace"/><ref name=Lievesly>{{cite journal | last1 = BCS Staff | last2 = Lievesley | first2 = Denise | author-link2 = Denise Lievesley | date = September 2006 | title = Data Information Knowledge Chain | journal = Health Informatics Now | volume = 1 | issue = 1 | pages = 14 | location = Swindon, UK | publisher = [[British Computer Society]]  | url = http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=ConWebDoc.7163 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120212235112/http://www.bcs.org/content/ConWebDoc/7163 | archive-date = 2012-02-12 | access-date = November 9, 2024 }}</ref><ref>In this regard, the DIKW representation is similar to [[Maslow's hierarchy of needs]],{{cn|date = November 2024}} in that each level of the hierarchy is argued to be an essential precursor to the levels above, although unlike Maslow's hierarchy—which describes relationships of priority (lower levels being the focus, first)—DIKW describes purported [[structural]] or [[Function model|functional]] relationships (lower levels being the material of higher levels).{{cn|date = November 2024}}</ref> Both Zeleny and Ackoff have been credited with originating the pyramid representation,<ref name="Wallace"/> although neither used a pyramid to present their ideas.<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Zeleny"/><ref name="Ackoff"/> According to Wallace, Debons and colleagues may have been the first to "present the hierarchy graphically".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Debons2"/> 

Many variations of the DIKW-type pyramid have been produced. One, in use by knowledge managers in the [[United States Department of Defense]], attempts to show the DIKW progression to enable effective decisions and consequent activities supporting shared understanding throughout defense organizations, as well as supporting management of risks associated with decisions.<ref>{{cite report | author = Headquarters Department of the Army | author-link = United States Army | date = March 6, 2015 | title = Techniques for Effective Knowledge Management | url=https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/atp6_01x1.pdf | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190126172728/https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/atp6_01x1.pdf | archive-date = 2019-01-26 | access-date=2024-11-09  | location = Arlington, VA | publisher = [[United States Army|Department of the Army]]  | edition = | chapter = | section = | page = | docket = | quote = | number = Army Techniques Publication 6-01.1 (FM 6-01.1)}}</ref>{{verification needed|date = November 2024}}

[[File:LiewDIKrepresentation.png|thumb| left| A non-pyramidal example of DIKW pyramid-type information, from Liew (2007).<ref name=Liew2007/>]]

DIKW-type hierarchical information paradigms have also been represented as two-dimensional [[chart]]s,<ref name=Chisholm>{{cite book | last1 = Chisholm | first1 = James | last2 = Warman | first2 = Greg | editor-last = Silberman | editor-first = Melvin L. | title = The Handbook of Experiential Learning | contribution = Experiential Learning in Change Management | publisher = [[Jossey Bass]] | year = 2007 | pages = 321–40 | isbn = 978-0-7879-8258-4 }}</ref><ref name=ChooDetlorTurnbull2000>{{cite book | author = Choo, Chun Wei; Detlor, Brian & Turnbull, Don | date = 2000 | title = Web Work: Information Seeking and Knowledge Work on the World Wide Web | edition = First | series = Information Science and Knowledge Management | volume = 1 | location = Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands | publisher = Kluwer Academic | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=gk1yzgEACAAJ | access-date = 9 November 2024 }}{{page needed|date = November 2024}} See also the 2013 edition, {{ISBN|9401594058}} and {{ISBN|9789401594059}}, published by Springer Science & Business Media, [https://books.google.com/books?id=t7q2BwAAQBAJ here], and the original publisher, Kluwer's presentation of a detailed outline of the book, [https://web.archive.org/web/20060429071055/http://choo.fis.utoronto.ca/kluwer/ here], and the presentation of "The Data-Information-Knowledge Continuum", a diagram connecting "signal" to "data" to "information" to "knowledge", [https://web.archive.org/web/20060505223506/http://choo.fis.utoronto.ca/kluwer/DataInfoKnow.html here].</ref>and as flow diagrams, where relationships between the components may be presented less hierarchically, with defining aspects of the relationships, feedback loops, etc.<ref name=Liew2007/>

=== Computational representation ===
Intelligent [[decision support systems]] are trying to improve [[decision making]] by introducing new technologies and methods from the domain of modeling and simulation in general, and in particular from the domain of intelligent [[software agent]]s in the contexts of [[agent-based modeling]].<ref name=Tolk2004>{{cite book | author =  Tolk, A.  | year = 2004 | chapter = An Agent-Based Decision Support System Architecture for the Military Domain | title = Intelligent Decision Support Systems in Agent-Mediated Environments | editor = Phillips-Wren, G. E. & Jain, L. C. | volume= 115 | series = Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications | location = Amsterdam, Netherlands  | publisher = Sage-IOS Press | pages = 187–205 | isbn = 978-1-58603-476-4 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=9CBPAAAAMAAJ | access-date = November 9, 2024 }}{{Page range too broad|date=November 2024}} Note, this link accesses no printed information in this volume.</ref>
[[File:Ackoff_Sim.png|thumb|right|300px|Ackoff's 1989 conception of a DIKW-type hierarchy, not in pyramidal form.<ref name=Tolk2004/>]]

The following example describes a military decision support system, but the architecture and underlying conceptual idea are transferable to other application domains:<ref name=Tolk2004/>

* The value chain starts with ''data quality'' describing the information within the underlying command and control systems.
* ''Information quality'' tracks the completeness, correctness, currency, consistency and precision of the data items and information statements available.
* ''Knowledge quality'' deals with procedural knowledge and information embedded in the command and control system such as templates for adversary forces, assumptions about entities such as ranges and weapons, and doctrinal assumptions, often coded as rules.
* ''Awareness quality'' measures the degree of using the information and knowledge embedded within the command and control system. Awareness is explicitly placed in the cognitive domain.

By the introduction of a [[common operational picture]], data are put into context, which leads to information instead of data. The next step, which is enabled by service-oriented web-based infrastructures (but not yet operationally used), is the use of models and simulations for decision support. Simulation systems are the prototype for procedural knowledge, which is the basis for knowledge quality. Finally, using intelligent software agents to continually observe the battle sphere, apply models and simulations to analyze what is going on, to monitor the execution of a plan, and to do all the tasks necessary to make the decision maker aware of what is going on, command and control systems could even support situational awareness, the level in the value chain traditionally limited to pure cognitive methods.<ref name=Tolk2004/>

==History==
Danny P. Wallace, a professor of [[library and information science]], explained that the origin of the DIKW pyramid is uncertain:
<blockquote>The presentation of the relationships among data, information, knowledge, and sometimes wisdom in a hierarchical arrangement has been part of the language of information science for many years. Although it is uncertain when and by whom those relationships were first presented, the ubiquity of the notion of a hierarchy is embedded in the use of the acronym DIKW as a shorthand representation for the data-to-information-to-knowledge-to-wisdom transformation.<ref name="Wallace">{{cite book | author = Wallace, Danny P. | year = 2007 | title = Knowledge Management: Historical and Cross-Disciplinary Themes | series = Libraries Unlimited Knowledge Management Series | location = New York, NY | publisher = Bloomsbury Academic | pages = 1–14 | isbn = 9781591585022 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ISBN9781591585022 | access-date = November 9, 2024 }}</ref></blockquote>Many authors think that the idea of the DIKW relationship originated from two lines in the poem "Choruses", by [[T. S. Eliot]], that appeared in the pageant play [[The Rock (play)|''The Rock'']], in 1934:<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=Lucky|first=R. W.|url=https://archive.org/details/silicondreamsinf00luck|title=Silicon dreams : information, man, and machine|date=1989|publisher=New York : St. Martin's Press|others=Internet Archive|isbn=978-0-312-02960-9|pages=20–21}}</ref>
<blockquote><poem>
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? 
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/choruses-%C3%B4%C3%A7%C2%A3the-rock%C3%B4%C3%A7%C3%B8|title=Choruses from " The Rock "|last=Eliot|first=T. S.|website=Poetry Nook}}</ref></poem></blockquote>

===Knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom===
In 1927, [[Clarence W. Barron]] addressed his employees at [[Dow Jones & Company]] on the hierarchy: "Knowledge, Intelligence and Wisdom".<ref>"Knowledge, Intelligence and Wisdom: an Address to the Staff of Dow, Jones & Co", 1927.</ref>

===Data, information, knowledge===
In 1955, English-American economist and educator [[Kenneth Boulding]] presented a variation on the hierarchy consisting of "[[signals]], [[messages]], information, and knowledge".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Boulding">{{cite journal | last = Boulding | first = Kenneth | author-link = Kenneth Boulding | title = Notes on the Information Concept | journal = Exploration | volume = 6 | pages = 103–112. CP IV, pp. 21–32 | location = Toronto | year = 1955 }}</ref> However, "[t]he first author to distinguish among data, information, and knowledge and to also employ the term '[[knowledge management]]' may have been American educator Nicholas L. Henry",<ref name="Wallace"/> in a 1974 journal article.<ref name="Henry">{{Cite journal | last = Henry | first = Nicholas L. | title = Knowledge Management: A New Concern for Public Administration | journal = [[Public Administration Review]] | volume = 34 | date = May–June 1974 | doi = 10.2307/974902 | issue = 3 | pages = 189–196 | jstor = 974902 }}</ref>

===Data, information, knowledge, wisdom===
Other early versions (prior to 1982) of the hierarchy that refer to a data tier include those of Chinese-American geographer [[Yi-Fu Tuan]]<ref name="Cleveland">{{cite journal | last = Cleveland | first = Harlan | author-link = Harlan Cleveland | title = Information as a Resource | journal = [[The Futurist (magazine)|The Futurist]] | pages = 34–39 |date=December 1982}}</ref>{{Verify source|date=January 2009}}<ref name="Sharma"/> and sociologist-historian [[Daniel Bell]].<ref name="Cleveland" />{{Verify source|date=January 2009}}.<ref name="Sharma"/> In 1980, Irish-born engineer [[Mike Cooley (engineer)|Mike Cooley]] invoked the same hierarchy in his critique of [[automation]] and [[Computer|computerization]], in his book ''Architect or Bee?: The Human / Technology Relationship''.<ref>{{cite book |title=Architect or Bee?: The Human / Technology Relationship |last=Cooley |first=Mike |author-link=Mike Cooley (engineer) |year=1980 |publisher=[[South End Press]] |location=Monroe |isbn=978-0-89608-131-4 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/architectorbeehu0000cool }}</ref>{{Verify source|date=January 2009}}<ref name="Sharma"/>

Thereafter, in 1987, Czechoslovakia-born educator [[Milan Zeleny]] mapped the components of the hierarchy to knowledge forms: ''know-nothing'', ''know-what'', ''know-how'', and ''know-why''.<ref name="Zeleny">{{Cite journal | first = Milan | last = Zeleny | author-link = Milan Zeleny | title = Management Support Systems: Towards Integrated Knowledge Management | journal = Human Systems Management | volume = 7 | issue = 1 | year = 1987 | pages = 59–70| doi = 10.3233/HSM-1987-7108 }}</ref>{{Verify source|date=January 2009}} Zeleny "has frequently been credited with proposing the [representation of DIKW as a pyramid ]... although he actually made no reference to any such graphical model."<ref name="Wallace"/>

The hierarchy appears again in a 1988 address to the [[International Society for General Systems Research]], by American organizational theorist [[Russell Ackoff]], published in 1989.<ref name="Ackoff">{{Cite journal | last = Ackoff | first = Russell | author-link = Russell Ackoff | title = From Data to Wisdom | journal = Journal of Applied Systems Analysis | volume = 16 | pages = 3–9 | year = 1989 | url = https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rob-Keller/post/Original_paper_of_From_data_to_wisdom_by_Ackoff_1989/attachment/63f67d8997e2867d5081d0de/AS%3A11431281121841684%401677098376991/download/Ackoff89.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InF1ZXN0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InF1ZXN0aW9uIn19 | access-date = 8 November 2024 }}</ref> Subsequent authors and textbooks cite Ackoff's as the "original articulation"<ref name=Rowley/> of the hierarchy or otherwise credit Ackoff with its proposal.<ref name=Rowley2> {{cite book | last = Rowley | first = Jennifer |author2=Richard Hartley | title = Organizing Knowledge: An Introduction to Managing Access to Information | publisher = [[Ashgate Publishing]], Ltd. | year = 2006 | pages = 5–6 | isbn = 978-0-7546-4431-6 }}</ref> Ackoff's version of the model includes an ''understanding'' tier (as Adler had, before him<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Adler2">{{Cite book | last = Adler | first = Mortimer Jerome | author-link = Mortimer Adler | year = 1970 | title = The Time of Our Lives: The Ethics of Common Sense | publisher = [[Holt, Rinehart and Winston]] | page = 206 | isbn = 978-0-03-081836-3 }}</ref><ref name="Adler">{{Cite book | last = Adler | first = Mortimer Jerome | author-link = Mortimer Adler | year = 1986 | title = A Guidebook To Learning For The Lifelong Pursuit Of Wisdom | publisher = [[Collier Macmillan]] | page = [https://archive.org/details/guidebooktolearn00adlerich/page/11 11] | isbn = 978-0-02-500340-8 | url = https://archive.org/details/guidebooktolearn00adlerich/page/11 }}</ref>), interposed between ''knowledge'' and ''wisdom''. Although Ackoff did not present the hierarchy graphically, he has also been credited with its representation as a pyramid.<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Ackoff"/> 

In 1989, [[Bell Labs]] veteran [[Robert W. Lucky]] wrote about the four-tier "[[information hierarchy]]" in the form of a pyramid in his book ''[[Silicon Dreams (book)|Silicon Dreams]]''.<ref name=":0" /> In the same year as Ackoff presented his address, information scientist [[Anthony Debons]] and colleagues introduced an extended hierarchy, with "events", "symbols", and "rules and [[formulations]]" tiers ahead of data.<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Debons2" /> In 1994 [[Nathan Shedroff]] presented the DIKW hierarchy in an [[information design]] context.<ref name="Jackson">{{cite book | last = Jackson | first = Robert | title = Information Design | page = [https://archive.org/details/informationdesig0000unse/page/267 267] | publisher = [[MIT Press]] | location = Cambridge | year = 1999 | isbn = 978-0262100694 | url = https://archive.org/details/informationdesig0000unse/page/267 }}</ref>

[[Jennifer Rowley]] noted in 2007 that as of that date there was "little reference to wisdom" in discussions of the DIKW in published college textbooks,<ref name=Rowley/> and she at times did not include wisdom in her own discussion of her research.<ref name=Rowley2/> Meanwhile, [[Chaim Zins]]' extensive primary research analysis conceptualizing data, information, and knowledge in that same year makes no explicit comment regarding wisdom, although citations included by Zins do make mention of the term (e.g., Dodig-Crnković, Ess, and Wormell cited therein),<ref name="Zins" />{{rp|482f,486}}

==Definitions/conceptions of the four DIKW components==
{{expand section | with = a check of the Baskarada & Koronios (2013) source, as a >5-year update of the Zins and Rowley descriptions of the four components | small = no | date = November 2024}} 
In 2013, Baskarada and Koronios attempted a relatively thorough review of the definitions of individual components, to that date.<ref name = BaskaradaKoronios2013>{{Cite journal|last1=Baskarada|first1=Sasa|last2=Koronios|first2=Andy|date=2013|title=Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom (DIKW): A Semiotic Theoretical and Empirical Exploration of the Hierarchy and its Quality Dimension|url=http://journal.acs.org.au/index.php/ajis/article/download/748/550|journal=Australasian Journal of Information Systems|volume=18|pages=5–24|doi=10.3127/ajis.v18i1.748|via=|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Data===
In the context of DIKW-type models, data is conceived, per Zins' 2007 formulation, as being composed of [[symbol]]s or [[Sign (semiotics)|sign]]s, representing [[Stimulus (physiology)|stimuli]] or signals,<ref name="Zins"/> that, in Rowley words (in 2007),  are "of no use until ... in a usable (that is, relevant) form".<ref name=Rowley2/> Zeleny characterized this non-usable characteristic of data as "know-nothing"<ref name="Zeleny"/>{{Verify source|date=January 2009}}.<ref name="Sharma"/>

The view in 2007 was that in some cases, data are understood to refer not only to symbols, but also to signals or stimuli referred to by such symbols—what Zins terms "subjective data".<ref name="Zins"/> "[U]niversal data", on the other hand, for Rowley, are "the product of "observation", while subjective data are the observations.<ref name=Rowley2/> This distinction is often obscured in definitions of data in terms of "[[fact]]s".{{says who|date = November 2024}}

====Data as fact====
In Henry's early formulation of a hierarchy, data was simply defined as "merely raw facts",<ref name="Henry"/>  Intervening texts define data as "chunks of facts about the state of the world",<ref name="Gamble">{{cite book | last = Gamble | first = Paul R. |author2=John Blackwell | title = Knowledge Management: A State of the Art Guide | publisher = [[Kogan Page]] | year = 2002 | location = London | page = 43 | isbn = 9780749436490 }}</ref> and "material facts",{{what|date = November 2024}}<ref name="Boiko">{{cite book | last = Boiko | first = Bob | edition = 2nd | title = Content Management Bible | publisher = [[John Wiley & Sons|Wiley]] | year = 2005 | location = Indianapolis | page = [https://archive.org/details/contentmanagemen0000boik/page/57 57] | isbn = 9780764548628 | url = https://archive.org/details/contentmanagemen0000boik/page/57 }}</ref> respectively.<ref name="Wallace"/> Rowley, following her 2007 study of DIKW definitions given in textbooks,<ref name=Rowley/> separately characterizes data "as being discrete, objective facts or observations, which (are unorganized and unprocessed and therefore have no meaning or value because of lack of context and interpretation."<ref name=Rowley2/>  Cleveland does not include an explicit data tier, but defines information as "the sum total of ... facts and ideas".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Cleveland"/>

Insofar as [[fact]]s have as a fundamental property that they are [[truth|true]], have [[Objectivity (philosophy)|objective]] reality, or otherwise can be [[verification theory|verified]], such definitions would preclude [[false (logic)|false]], meaningless, and [[nonsensical]] data from the DIKW model,{{says who|date = November 2024}} such that the principle of [[garbage in, garbage out]] would not be accounted for under DIKW.{{cn|date = November 2024}}{{OR|date = November 2024}}

====Data as signal====
In the subjective domain, per Zins' 2007 work, data are conceived of as "sensory stimuli, which we perceive through our senses",<ref name="Zins" /> or "signal readings", including "sensor and/or sensory readings of light, sound, smell, taste, and touch".<ref name=Liew2007/> Others have argued that what Zins calls subjective data actually count as a "signal" tier (as had Boulding<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Boulding"/>), which precedes data in the DIKW chain.<ref name=ChooDetlorTurnbull2000/>

American information scientist Glynn Harmon defined data as "one or more kinds of energy waves or particles (light, heat, sound, force, electromagnetic) selected by a conscious organism or intelligent agent on the basis of a preexisting frame or inferential mechanism in the organism or agent" (e.g., Harmon, as cited by Zins)<ref name="Zins" />{{rp|483}}

The meaning of sensory stimuli may also be thought of as subjective data; as Zins stated in 2007, information<blockquote>is the meaning of these sensory stimuli (''i.e.'', the empirical perception). For example, the noises that I hear are data. The meaning of these noises (''e.g.'', a running car engine) is information. Still, there is another alternative as to how to define these two concepts—which seems even better. Data are sense stimuli, or their meaning (''i.e.'', the empirical perception). Accordingly, in the example above, the loud noises, as well as the perception of a running car engine, are data.<ref name="Zins" /></blockquote>

Likewise, per that work of Zins, subjective data, if understood in this way, would be comparable to [[knowledge by acquaintance]], in that it is based on direct experience of stimuli;{{verification needed|date = November 2024}} however, unlike knowledge by acquaintance, as described by [[Bertrand Russell]] and others, the subjective domain is "not related to ... truthfulness".<ref name="Zins"/>

Whether Zins' alternate definition would hold would be a function of whether "the running of a car engine" is understood as an objective fact or as a contextual interpretation.{{says who|date= November 2024}}

====Data as symbol====
Whether the DIKW definition of data is deemed to include Zins's 2007 view of subjective data (with or without meaning), data is somemwhat consistently defined to include "symbols",<ref name="Ackoff" /><ref name="Bellinger">{{cite web | last = Bellinger | first = Gene | author-link = Gene Bellinger |author2=Castro, Durval  |author3=Mills, Anthony | title = Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom | year = 2004 | url = http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm | access-date = 7 January 2009 }}</ref> or, per Zins, "sets of [[Sign (semiotics)|signs]] that represent [[empirical]] stimuli or [[perceptions]]",<ref name="Zins" /> in Rowley's words (writing in that same year), of "a property of an object, an event or of their environment".<ref name=Rowley2/> Data, in this sense, as described by Liew, likewise in 2007, are "recorded (captured or stored) [[symbols]]", including "words (text and/or verbal), numbers, diagrams, and images (still and/or video), which are the building blocks of communication", the purpose of which "is to record activities or situations, to attempt to capture the true picture or real event," such that "all data are [[historical]], unless used for illustrative purposes, such as [[forecasting]]."<ref name=Liew2007/>

Boulding's version of DIKW-type models explicitly named the level below the information tier ''message'', distinguishing it from an underlying ''signal'' tier.<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Boulding"/> Debons and colleagues reverse this relationship, identifying an explicit ''symbol'' tier as one of several levels underlying data.<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Debons2">{{cite book |last=Debons |first=Anthony |title=Information Science: An Integrated View |author2=Ester Horne |publisher=[[G. K. Hall]] |year=1988 |isbn=978-0-8161-1857-1 |location=Boston |page=5}}</ref>

Zins argues in the same work that, for most of those surveyed, data "are characterized as phenomena in the universal domain... Apparently," clarifies Zins, "it is more useful to relate to the data, information, and knowledge as sets of signs rather than as meaning and its building blocks".<ref name="Zins" />

===Information===
"Classically," states Gamble's 2007 text, "information is defined as data that are endowed with meaning and purpose."<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Gamble"/> In the context of DIKW, as presented by Rowley in 2007, information meets the definition for [[knowledge by description]] ("information is contained in descriptions"), and is differentiated from data in that it is "useful".<ref name=Rowley2/> In her words, "[i]nformation is inferred from data", in the process of answering [[interrogative]] questions (''e.g.'', Ackoff's "who", "what", "where", "how many", "when"<ref name="Ackoff" />)<ref name=Rowley2/> thereby making the data useful for "decisions and/or action".<ref name=Liew2007/><ref name="Bellinger" />

====Structural ''v.'' functional information====
Rowley, following her 2007 review of how DIKW is presented in textbooks,<ref name=Rowley/> describes information as "organized or structured data, which has been processed in such a way that the information now has relevance for a specific purpose or context, and is therefore meaningful, valuable, useful and relevant." Note that this definition contrasts with Rowley's separate characterization of Ackoff's definitions, wherein "[t]he difference between data and information is structural, not functional."<ref name=Rowley2/>

In his formulation of the hierarchy, Henry defined information as "data that changes us",<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Henry"/> this being a functional, rather than structural, distinction between data and information. Meanwhile, Cleveland, who did not refer to a data level in his version of DIKW, described information as "the sum total of all the facts and ideas that are available to be known by somebody at a given moment in time".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Cleveland"/>

American educator Bob Boiko is more obscure, defining information only as "matter-of-fact".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Boiko"/>

====Symbolic ''v.'' subjective information====
Information may be conceived of in DIKW-type models as universal, per Zins writing in 2007, existing as symbols and signs; subjective, the meaning to which symbols attach; or both.<ref name="Zins"/> Examples from of information as both symbol and meaning, per Zins analysis based on the work of others, include:

* American information scientist Anthony Debons's characterization of information as representing "a state of awareness (consciousness) and the physical manifestations they form", such that "[i]nformation, as a phenomenon, represents both a process and a product; a cognitive/affective state, and the physical counterpart (product of) the cognitive/affective state."<ref name="Zins"/>{{rp|482}}
* Danish information scientist Hanne Albrechtsen's description of information as "related to meaning or human intention", either as "the contents of databases, the web, ''etc.''" (italics added) or "the meaning of statements as they are intended by the speaker/writer and understood/misunderstood by the listener/reader."<ref name="Zins"/>{{rp|480}}

Zeleny formerly described information as "know-what",<ref name="Zeleny"/>{{Citation needed|date=January 2009}} but has since refined this to differentiate between "what to have or to possess" (information) and "what to do, act or carry out" (wisdom). To this conceptualization of information, he also adds "why is", as distinct from "why do" (another aspect of wisdom). Zeleny further argues that there is no such thing as [[explicit knowledge]], but rather that knowledge, once made explicit in symbolic form, becomes information.<ref name="Zeleny2">{{cite book | author = Zeleny, Milan | author-link = Milan Zeleny | year = 2005 | title = Human Systems Management: Integrating Knowledge, Management and Systems | series = Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects | volume = G | location = Hackensack, NJ | publisher = [[World Scientific]] | isbn = 9789810249137 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=CHVqDQAAQBAJ | access-date = }}</ref>

===Knowledge===
American philosophers [[John Dewey]] and [[Arthur F. Bentley|Arthur Bentley]], in their 1949 book ''[[Knowing and the Known]]'', argued that "knowledge" is "a vague word", and presented a view, distinct but foreshadowing DIKW-type models, that outlined nineteen "terminological guide-posts".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref>{{cite book | last = Dewey | first = John | author-link = John Dewey |author2=Arthur F. Bentley | title = Knowing and the Known | url = https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.188277 | publisher = Beacon Press | year = 1949 | location = Boston | pages = 58, 72–74 | isbn = 978-0-8371-8498-2 | author-link2 = Arthur F. Bentley }}</ref> Other definitions may refer to information having been processed, organized or structured in some way, or else as being applied or put into action.{{cn|date = November 2024}} As such, the knowledge component of DIKW-type models is generally understood to be a concept elusive and difficult to define.{{cn|date = November 2024}} As well, [[definition of knowledge|definitions of knowledge]] by those who study DIKW-type models differ from that used by [[epistemology]].{{cn|date = November 2024}} 

Per Rowley, writing in 2007, the DIKW view is that "knowledge is defined with reference to information."<ref name=Rowley2/> Zins, also writing in 2007, has suggested that knowledge, being subjective rather than universal, is not the subject of study in [[information science]], and that it is often defined in [[propositional]] terms,<ref name="Zins"/> while Zeleny has asserted that to capture knowledge in symbolic form is to make it into information, ''i.e.'', that "All knowledge is tacit".<ref name="Zeleny2" />

"One of the most frequently quoted definitions"<ref name="Wallace"/> of knowledge captures some of the various ways in which it has been defined by others:

<blockquote>Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, expert insight and grounded intuition that provides an environment and framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations it often becomes embedded not only in documents and repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices and norms.<ref name="Wallace"/><ref>{{cite book | last = Davenport | first = Thomas H. | author-link = Thomas H. Davenport | author2 = Laurence Prusack | title = Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know | publisher = [[Harvard Business School Press]] | year = 1998 | location = Boston | pages = [https://archive.org/details/workingknowledge00thom_0/page/5 5] | isbn = 978-0-585-05656-2 | url = https://archive.org/details/workingknowledge00thom_0/page/5 }}</ref></blockquote>

====Knowledge as processed====
Mirroring the description of information as "organized or structured data", knowledge was described, as of 2007, as:

* "synthesis of multiple sources of information over time"...
* "organization and processing to convey understanding, experience [and] accumulated learning"... or
* "a mix of contextual information, values, experience and rules".<ref name=Rowley2/>

One of Boulding's definitions for knowledge had been "a mental structure"<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Boulding"/> and Cleveland described knowledge as "the result of somebody applying the [[refiner]]'s fire to [information], selecting and organizing what is useful to somebody".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Cleveland"/> A 2007 text describes knowledge as "information connected in relationships".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Gamble"/>

====Knowledge as procedural====
Zeleny defines knowledge as "know-how"<ref name="Zeleny2"/><ref name="Zeleny" /> (''i.e.'', [[procedural knowledge]]), and also "know-who" and "know-when", each gained through "practical experience".<ref name="Zeleny2"/> "Knowledge ... brings forth from the background of experience a coherent and self-consistent set of coordinated actions.".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Zeleny"/> Further, implicitly holding information as descriptive, Zeleny declares that "Knowledge is action, not a description of action."<ref name="Zeleny2"/>

Ackoff, likewise, described knowledge as the "application of data and information", which "answers 'how' questions",<ref name="Ackoff"/>{{Verify source|date=January 2009}}<ref name="Bellinger"/> that is, in Rowley's view, "know-how".<ref name=Rowley2/>

Meanwhile, as described by Rowley in 2007, textbooks discussing DIKW were found to describe knowledge variously in terms of [[experience]], [[skill]], [[expertise]] or capability, for instance as
* "study and experience"...
* "a mix of contextual information, expert opinion, skills and experience"...
* "information combined with understanding and capability"... or
* "perception, skills, training, common sense and experience".<ref name=Rowley2/>

Businessmen James Chisholm and Greg Warman, writing in that same year, characterized knowledge simply as "doing things right".<ref name=Chisholm/>

====Knowledge as propositional====
In Rowley's 2007 views, knowledge can be described as "belief structuring" and "internalization with reference to cognitive frameworks".<ref name=Rowley2/> One definition given by Boulding for knowledge was "the subjective 'perception of the world and one's place in it'",<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Boulding"/> while Zeleny's said that knowledge "should refer to an observer's distinction of 'objects' (wholes, unities)".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Zeleny"/>

Zins, likewise, wrote in 2007 that knowledge is described in [[proposition]]al terms, as justifiable beliefs (subjective domain, akin to [[tacit knowledge]]), and sometimes also as signs that represent such beliefs (universal/collective domain, akin to [[explicit knowledge]]).<ref name="Zins"/>{{page needed|date = November 2024}} Zeleny has rejected the idea of explicit knowledge (as in Zins' universal knowledge), arguing that once made symbolic, knowledge becomes information.<ref name="Zeleny2"/> Boiko appears to echo this sentiment, in his claim that "knowledge and wisdom can be information".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Boiko"/>

In the subjective domain, per Zins 2007 work, knowledge is<blockquote>a [[thought]] in the individual's [[mind]], which is characterized by the individual's justifiable [[belief]] that it is [[truth|true]]. It can be empirical and non-empirical, as in the case of logical and mathematical knowledge (''e.g.'', "every triangle has three sides"), religious knowledge (''e.g.'', "[[God exists]]"), philosophical knowledge (''e.g.'', "''[[Cogito ergo sum]]''"), and the like. Note that knowledge is the content of a thought in the individual's mind, which is characterized by the individual's justifiable belief that it is true, while "knowing" is a state of mind which is characterized by the three conditions: (1) the individual believe[s] that it is true, (2) S/he can [[justification (epistemology)|justify]] it, and (3) It is true, or it [appears] to be true.<ref name="Zins" /></blockquote>

The distinction here between subjective knowledge and subjective information is that subjective knowledge is characterized by justifiable belief, where subjective information is a type of knowledge concerning the meaning of data.{{cn|date = November 2024}}

Boiko implied that knowledge was both open to rational [[discourse]] and justification, when he defined knowledge as "a matter of dispute".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Boiko"/>

===Wisdom===
Although commonly included as a level in DIKW-type models, Rowley noted in 2007 that, in discussions of the DIKW-type models, "there is limited reference to wisdom".<ref name=Rowley/> Boiko appears to have dismissed wisdom, characterizing it as "non-material".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Boiko"/>

Ackoff refers to understanding as an "appreciation of 'why'", and wisdom as "evaluated understanding", where ''understanding'' is posited as a discrete layer between knowledge and wisdom.<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Ackoff"/><ref name="Bellinger"/> Adler had previously also included an understanding tier,<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Adler2"/><ref name="Adler"/> while other authors have depicted understanding as a dimension in relation to which DIKW is plotted.<ref name=Chisholm/><ref name="Bellinger"/>

Cleveland described wisdom simply as "integrated knowledge—information made super-useful".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Cleveland"/> Other authors have characterized wisdom as "knowing the right things to do"<ref name=Chisholm/> and "the ability to make sound judgments and decisions apparently without thought".<ref name="Wallace"/><ref name="Gamble"/> Wisdom involves using knowledge for the greater good; because of this, wisdom is described as being deeper and more uniquely human,{{says who|date = November 2024}} and requires a sense of good and bad, of right and wrong, of the ethical and unethical.{{says who|date = November 2024}}{{cn|date = November 2024}}

Zeleny described wisdom as "know-why",<ref name="Zeleny"/> but later refined his definitions, so as to differentiate "why do" (wisdom) from "why is" (information), and expanding his definition to include a form of know-what ("what to do, act or carry out").<ref name="Zeleny2"/> And, as noted by Nikhil Sharma, Zeleny has argued for a tier to the model beyond wisdom, termed "enlightenment".<ref name="Sharma">{{cite web | last = Sharma | first = Nikhil | title = The Origin of the "Data Information Knowledge Wisdom" Hierarchy | url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292335202 | date = 4 February 2008 | access-date = 7 January 2009 }}</ref><ref name=Zeleny2/>{{rp|14}}

===Other included components===
{{expand section | with = a comparably thoughtful source-derived presentation of any other ''frequently'' included components, in addition to the DIKW four | small = no | date = November 2024}}

==Criticisms==
[[Rafael Capurro]], a philosopher based in Germany, argues—per Zins 2007 description—that data is an abstraction, that information refers to "the act of communicating meaning", and knowledge "is the event of meaning selection of a (psychic/social) system from its 'world' on the basis of communication". As such, any impression of a logical hierarchy between these concepts "is a fairytale".<ref name="Zins" />{{rp|481}}

One objection offered by Zins: while knowledge may be an exclusively cognitive phenomenon, the difficulty in pointing to a given fact as being distinctively information or knowledge, but not both, makes DIKW-type models unworkable, for instance, he asks<blockquote>is Albert Einstein's famous equation "E = mc<sup>2</sup>" (which is printed on my computer screen, and is definitely separated from any human mind) information or knowledge? Is "2 + 2 = 4" information or knowledge?<ref name="Zins" />{{page needed|date = November 2024}}</blockquote>

Alternatively, in Zins' 2007 analysis referencing Roberto Poli, information and knowledge might be seen as [[synonyms]].<ref name="Zins" />{{rp|485}} In answer to these criticisms, Zins argues that, [[Subject (philosophy)|subjectivist]] and [[empiricist]] philosophy aside, "the three fundamental concepts of data, information, and knowledge and the relations among them, as they are perceived by leading scholars in the information science academic community", have meanings open to distinct definitions.<ref name="Zins" />{{page needed|date = November 2024}} Rowley, in her 2007 discussion, echoes this point in arguing that, where definitions of knowledge may disagree, "[t]hese various perspectives all take as their point of departure the relationship between data, information and knowledge."<ref name=Rowley/>

[[Information processing theory|Information processing]] theory argues that the physical world is made of information itself.{{Citation needed|date=October 2016}} Under this definition, ''data'' is either made up of or synonymous with physical information. It is unclear, however, whether information as it is conceived in the DIKW model would be considered derivative from physical-information/data or synonymous with physical information. In the former case, the DIKW model is open to the fallacy of [[equivocation]]. In the latter, the data tier of the DIKW model is preempted by an assertion of [[neutral monism]].

Educator Martin Frické has published an article critiquing the DIKW hierarchy, in which he argues that the model is based on "dated and unsatisfactory philosophical positions of [[operationalism]] and [[inductivism]]", that information and knowledge are both weak knowledge, and that wisdom is the "possession and use of wide [[practical]] knowledge.<ref>{{Cite journal |first=Martin |last=Frické |title=The Knowledge Pyramid: A Critique of the DIKW Hierarchy |journal=[[Journal of Information Science]] |volume=35 |issue=2 |year=2009 |pages=131–142 |doi=10.1177/0165551508094050 |hdl=10150/105670 |s2cid=2973966 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>

[[David Weinberger]] argues that although the DIKW pyramid appears to be a logical and straight-forward progression, this is incorrect. "What looks like a logical progression is actually a desperate cry for help."<ref name="Weinberger 2010">{{Cite journal|url=https://hbr.org/2010/02/data-is-to-info-as-info-is-not|title=The Problem with the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom Hierarchy|last=Weinberger|first=David|journal=Harvard Business Review |date=2 February 2010|access-date=3 February 2020}}</ref> He points out there is a discontinuity between Data and Information (which are stored in computers), versus Knowledge and Wisdom (which are human endeavours). This suggests that the DIKW pyramid is too simplistic in representing how these concepts interact. "...Knowledge is not determined by information, for it is the knowing process that first decides which information is relevant, and how it is to be used."<ref name="Weinberger 2010" />

==See also==
* {{annotated link|Bloom's taxonomy}}
* {{annotated link|Higher-order thinking}}
* {{annotated link|Intelligence cycle}}
* {{annotated link|Ladder of inference}}
* {{annotated link|Model of hierarchical complexity}}
* {{annotated link|Maslow's hierarchy of needs}}, a similar graphic in the field of [[psychology]] 
* [[Inverted pyramid (journalism)]], a metaphor used by journalists and writers to prioritise and structure the most newsworthy info and important details over general info

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

== Further reading ==
* {{cite web |last=Hey |first=Jonathan |author-link=Jonathan Hey |date=December 2004 |title=The Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom chain: the metaphorical link |url=http://ioc.unesco.org/Oceanteacher/OceanTeacher2/02_InfTchSciCmm/DIKWchain.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071202033948/http://ioc.unesco.org/Oceanteacher/OceanTeacher2/02_InfTchSciCmm/DIKWchain.pdf |archive-date=2 December 2007 |access-date=2 October 2016}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dikw}}
[[Category:Information science]]
[[Category:Knowledge management]]
[[Category:Information systems]]