Method guideKnowledge Modeling

Knowledge Mapping

A practical method guide: clarify prerequisites and materials, understand the complete process, and look up outputs, pitfalls, and stop criteria.

ComplexityMedium

Time1-3 h

Participants3-12

FormatWorkshop

MaturityEstablished

Plan Knowledge Mapping

Prerequisite

What needs to be finished first

Complete firstConcrete subject

Set one concrete service and its knowledge boundary; gather known roles, artifacts, and locations.

Without a boundary the run becomes generic and untestable.

Complete firstAccess and participation

Facilitator · domain representatives · knowledge holders · transfer owners

Missing perspectives or access are made visible before starting.

Preparation

What needs to be ready before start

Materials

Domain list, role overview, existing documents, systems, and dependencies

People / roles

Facilitator · domain representatives · knowledge holders · transfer owners

Pre-read

Set one concrete service and its knowledge boundary; gather known roles, artifacts, and locations. Prepare real cases, sources, and boundaries.

Time needed

90–180 minutes for one domain; add validation with knowledge holders.

Setup

Create a workspace with Domain scope · Knowledge register · Assessment · Risk map · Transfer plan; keep example values separate from live data.

Core question

The one question this method answers

Which critical knowledge exists where, with whom, and at what risk to the work?

Flow

Phases with goal, actions, output and pitfall

Zuerst werden Wissensdomänen, Quellen und Träger gesammelt. Danach bewertet das Team Kritikalität, Abhängigkeiten und fehlende Bausteine und plant Transfers oder Sicherungen. Am Ende entsteht eine Karte, die Lern- und Übergabeaufwand gezielt steuerbar macht.

Knowledge Mapping · working structure

Fictional example

Fictional values are assigned to explicit method fields.

Knowledge Mapping · working structure
Knowledge area	Holder	Artifact	Location	Currency	Criticality	Transfer
Slot rulesRecord knowledge area with holder, artifact, risk, and transfer.	Lea	Pickup wiki page	Confluence / Ops	Checked 2 Oct	High, used daily	Kim handles the next exception
Warehouse exceptionsRecord knowledge area with holder, artifact, risk, and transfer.	Murat	No artifact yet	Personal knowledge	Current only verbally	Critical, single-person risk	Document three cases by 18 Oct

1. Holder
Slot rules
Lea
Warehouse exceptions
Murat
2. Artifact
Slot rules
Pickup wiki page
Warehouse exceptions
No artifact yet
3. Location
Slot rules
Confluence / Ops
Warehouse exceptions
Personal knowledge
4. Currency
Slot rules
Checked 2 Oct
Warehouse exceptions
Current only verbally
5. Criticality
Slot rules
High, used daily
Warehouse exceptions
Critical, single-person risk
6. Transfer
Slot rules
Kim handles the next exception
Warehouse exceptions
Document three cases by 18 Oct

All details are fictional.

Reference source · original teaching example

1
Scope
Domain scope
Goal
Domain scope: Define scope and knowledge domains around one concrete service.
Inputs for this step
- Set one concrete service and its knowledge boundary; gather known roles, artifacts, and locations.
- Domain list, role overview, existing documents, systems, and dependencies
Actions
- Define scope and knowledge domains around one concrete service.
Output
Domain scope
Define scope and knowledge domains around one concrete service
Quality check
Is the scope tied to one service and a clear boundary?
Pitfall
When the scope is too broad or chosen without a concrete service, the knowledge cannot be bounded meaningfully afterward. Anchor scope and knowledge domains to one concrete service and a clear boundary.
Timing: Use the time needed within the overall frame; close the step only after its check passes.
2
Knowledge
Knowledge register
Goal
Knowledge register: Record knowledge holders, artifacts, and locations for each domain.
Inputs for this step
- Domain scope
Actions
- Record knowledge holders, artifacts, and locations for each domain.
Output
Knowledge register
Record knowledge holders, artifacts, and locations for each domain
Quality check
Does each entry name knowledge, holder, artifact, and location?
Pitfall
When entries name only a topic without a holder or location, the knowledge cannot be located again later. Capture knowledge, holder, artifact, and location together for every entry.
Timing: Use the time needed within the overall frame; close the step only after its check passes.
3
Assessment
Assessment
Goal
Assessment: Assess criticality, currency, and dependencies with evidence.
Inputs for this step
- Knowledge register
Actions
- Assess criticality, currency, and dependencies with evidence.
Output
Assessment
Assess criticality, currency, and dependencies with evidence
Quality check
Are criticality and currency justified by use or incidents?
Pitfall
When criticality and currency are only guessed rather than evidenced, later prioritization gets distorted. Ground criticality and currency in actual use or incidents, not assumption.
Timing: Use the time needed within the overall frame; close the step only after its check passes.
4
Risks
Risk map
Goal
Risk map: Mark knowledge gaps, single-person risks, and stale artifacts.
Inputs for this step
- Assessment
Actions
- Mark knowledge gaps, single-person risks, and stale artifacts.
Output
Risk map
Mark knowledge gaps, single-person risks, and stale artifacts
Quality check
Are missing knowledge and missing documentation separated?
Pitfall
When missing knowledge and missing documentation are mixed together, the wrong actions follow. Mark knowledge gaps and documentation gaps separately and make single-person risks visible.
Timing: Use the time needed within the overall frame; close the step only after its check passes.
5
Transfer
Transfer plan
Goal
Transfer plan: Plan transfer actions with owner, audience, and review date.
Inputs for this step
- Risk map
Actions
- Plan transfer actions with owner, audience, and review date.
Output
Transfer plan
Plan transfer actions with owner, audience, and review date
Quality check
Can every transfer action be checked through a real task?
Pitfall
When transfer actions are planned without a real task, it stays unclear whether the transfer actually worked. Tie every action to a real task with an owner, target audience, and review date.
Timing: Use the time needed within the overall frame; close the step only after its check passes.

Artifact

What comes out at the end

Sketch: what the artifact looks like

Knowledge Mapping · WissensrisikenWissensdomänen, Wissensträger, Artefakte, Kritikalität und Transfermaßnahmen als Karte verbinden

Form

Transfer plan with evidence, open points, owner, and review.

Versioning / ownership

Record date, owner, source state, and review date; preserve earlier versions.

Tool alternatives

Shared workspace
Domain list, role overview, existing documents, systems, and dependencies
Versioned result repository

knowledge-mapping-working-template.md

Plan subject, participation, complete flow, and review.

Knowledge Mapping: Worksheet

Question

To be confirmed

Desired outcome

To be confirmed

Scope

Complete run Time: 90–180 minutes for one domain; add validation with knowledge holders.

Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Materials: Domain list, role overview, existing documents, systems, and dependencies
Roles: Facilitator · domain representatives · knowledge holders · transfer owners
Advance information: Set one concrete service and its knowledge boundary; gather known roles, artifacts, and locations. Prepare real cases, sources, and boundaries.
Overall time needed: 90–180 minutes for one domain; add validation with knowledge holders.
Setup: Create a workspace with Domain scope · Knowledge register · Assessment · Risk map · Transfer plan; keep example values separate from live data.

Prepare for the work steps

Scope: Domain scope

Set one concrete service and its knowledge boundary; gather known roles, artifacts, and locations.
Domain list, role overview, existing documents, systems, and dependencies

Knowledge: Knowledge register

Domain scope

Assessment: Assessment

Knowledge register

Risks: Risk map

Assessment

Transfer: Transfer plan

Risk map

Knowledge Mapping · working structure

Knowledge area	Holder	Artifact	Location	Currency	Criticality	Transfer
Slot rules
Warehouse exceptions

Slot rules: Record knowledge area with holder, artifact, risk, and transfer.
Warehouse exceptions: Record knowledge area with holder, artifact, risk, and transfer.

The blank worksheet contains prompts only.

Reference source · original teaching example

Scope: Domain scope

Expected artifact: Domain scope

Define scope and knowledge domains around one concrete service

Entry:

...

Is the scope tied to one service and a clear boundary?

Knowledge: Knowledge register

Expected artifact: Knowledge register

Record knowledge holders, artifacts, and locations for each domain

Entry:

...

Does each entry name knowledge, holder, artifact, and location?

Assessment: Assessment

Expected artifact: Assessment

Assess criticality, currency, and dependencies with evidence

Entry:

...

Are criticality and currency justified by use or incidents?

Risks: Risk map

Expected artifact: Risk map

Mark knowledge gaps, single-person risks, and stale artifacts

Entry:

...

Are missing knowledge and missing documentation separated?

Transfer: Transfer plan

Expected artifact: Transfer plan

Plan transfer actions with owner, audience, and review date

Entry:

...

Can every transfer action be checked through a real task?

Open questions and next steps

...

Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/knowledge-mapping/run-sheet

Example output

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional example for orientation. Counts and timings describe this case and are not universal requirements.

knowledge-mapping-beispiel.md

Concrete filled scenario, fictional example

Fictional teaching example: Knowledge Mapping · working structure

Knowledge area	Holder	Artifact	Location	Currency	Criticality	Transfer
Slot rules	Lea	Pickup wiki page	Confluence / Ops	Checked 2 Oct	High, used daily	Kim handles the next exception
Warehouse exceptions	Murat	No artifact yet	Personal knowledge	Current only verbally	Critical, single-person risk	Document three cases by 18 Oct

Pitfalls

Recognize symptoms and steer against them

Quick overview, the full text is in the matching phase in the flow

Domain scopeWhen the scope is too broad or chosen without a concrete service, the knowledge cannot be bounded meaningfully afterward.View in phase
Knowledge registerWhen entries name only a topic without a holder or location, the knowledge cannot be located again later.View in phase
AssessmentWhen criticality and currency are only guessed rather than evidenced, later prioritization gets distorted.View in phase
Risk mapWhen missing knowledge and missing documentation are mixed together, the wrong actions follow.View in phase
Transfer planWhen transfer actions are planned without a real task, it stays unclear whether the transfer actually worked.View in phase

Stop criteria

When to pause, resolve prerequisites, or choose another approach

Do not close “Domain scope” while this check remains open: Is the scope tied to one service and a clear boundary?

Do not close “Knowledge register” while this check remains open: Does each entry name knowledge, holder, artifact, and location?

Do not close “Assessment” while this check remains open: Are criticality and currency justified by use or incidents?

Do not close “Risk map” while this check remains open: Are missing knowledge and missing documentation separated?

Do not close “Transfer plan” while this check remains open: Can every transfer action be checked through a real task?

Where to go next?

Knowledge Modeling

Teach-back

Checks whether the planned transfer measures actually land with the recipient.

Domain Modeling

Domain Context Map

Embeds the critical domain knowledge into the responsible model boundaries.

View in playbookTransfer Learning and KnowledgeMove from implicit knowledge to verifiable understanding, repetition, and team learning.

Finished the method guide?

Go to the profile for purpose, similar methods, and sources or continue to the next method in the catalog.

Go to profile More methods

Knowledge Mapping · working structure

1. Holder

2. Artifact

3. Location

4. Currency

5. Criticality

6. Transfer

Domain scope

Knowledge register

Assessment

Risk map

Transfer plan

knowledge-mapping-working-template.md

Knowledge Mapping: Worksheet

Question

Desired outcome

Scope

Preparation for this scope

Method setup

Prepare for the work steps

Scope: Domain scope

Knowledge: Knowledge register

Assessment: Assessment

Risks: Risk map

Transfer: Transfer plan

Knowledge Mapping · working structure

Scope: Domain scope

Knowledge: Knowledge register

Assessment: Assessment

Risks: Risk map

Transfer: Transfer plan

Open questions and next steps

knowledge-mapping-beispiel.md

Fictional teaching example: Knowledge Mapping · working structure

Domain scope

Knowledge register

Assessment

Risk map

Transfer plan

Where to go next?

Finished the method guide?