Move from implicit knowledge to verifiable understanding, repetition, and team learning.
A learning path with knowledge map, teach-back, review, and next deepening steps.
You can decide which knowledge gaps are closed and which learning paths or documentation still needs work.
Continue the learning path, maintain knowledge artifacts, and verify understanding in actual application.
Which critical knowledge exists where, with whom, and at what risk to the work?
Knowledge Mapping shows existing knowledge, sources, gaps, and dependencies in the learning field.
Key knowledge areas are then translated into plain explanations.
Can I explain this concept without skipping a step or hiding behind jargon?
The Feynman Technique checks understanding by bringing complex content into plain language.
The explanation is then validated through re-explanation and follow-up questions.
Can the learner restate and apply the information correctly in their own words?
Teach-back makes it visible whether knowledge is truly understood, not only recognized.
Observations then feed into structured learning reflection.
What can we learn from the actual course of events without reducing the analysis to individual blame?
The Learning Review bundles progress, gaps, and next deepening activities.
Next learning steps are planned and knowledge artifacts updated as needed.
Artifacts stay collapsed until you actually need them.
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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_mapping)
## 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
Plan subject, participation, complete flow, and review.
# Learning Review: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 90–180 minutes; add time for evidence collection and action follow-up.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Timeline, decisions, signals, and available system or process data
- **Roles:** Facilitator · people with direct experience · scribe · action owners
- **Advance information:** Bound one event by time, impact, and learning purpose; confirm confidentiality and a blame-free rule. Prepare real cases, sources, and boundaries.
- **Overall time needed:** 90–180 minutes; add time for evidence collection and action follow-up.
- **Setup:** Create a workspace with Review frame · Evidence timeline · Decision view · System factors · Learning plan; keep example values separate from live data.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Frame: Review frame
- Bound one event by time, impact, and learning purpose; confirm confidentiality and a blame-free rule.
- Timeline, decisions, signals, and available system or process data
#### Timeline: Evidence timeline
- Review frame
#### Decisions: Decision view
- Evidence timeline
#### System: System factors
- Decision view
#### Learning: Learning plan
- System factors
## Learning Review · working structure
### Review frame
Clarify scope, learning stance, and safe discussion rules
...
### Evidence timeline
Reconstruct a timeline from observable events
...
### Decision view
Examine decisions with the information and assumptions available at the time
...
### System factors
Connect systemic conditions and contributing factors
...
### Learning plan
Agree learning and improvement actions with an effect check
...
The blank worksheet contains prompts only.
[Reference source · original teaching example](https://sre.google/workbook/postmortem-culture/)
## Frame: Review frame
Expected artifact: Review frame
Clarify scope, learning stance, and safe discussion rules
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are scope, confidentiality, and a blame-free working rule confirmed?
## Timeline: Evidence timeline
Expected artifact: Evidence timeline
Reconstruct a timeline from observable events
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does the timeline separate timestamps, observations, and later interpretation?
## Decisions: Decision view
Expected artifact: Decision view
Examine decisions with the information and assumptions available at the time
Entry:
...
- [ ] Is each decision explained using the information available at that time?
## System: System factors
Expected artifact: System factors
Connect systemic conditions and contributing factors
Entry:
...
- [ ] Do factors show interactions rather than naming one person as the cause?
## Learning: Learning plan
Expected artifact: Learning plan
Agree learning and improvement actions with an effect check
Entry:
...
- [ ] Do actions have an owner, date, and observable effect signal?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/learning-review/run-sheet