This paper revisits the data-information-knowledge-wisdom (DIKW) hierarchy by examining the articulation of the hierarchy in a number of widely read textbooks, and analysing their statements about the nature of data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. The hierarchy referred to variously as the 'Knowledge Hierarchy', the 'Information Hierarchy' and the 'Knowledge Pyramid' is one of the fundamental, widely recognized and 'taken-for-granted' models in the information and knowledge literatures. It is often quoted, or used implicitly, in definitions of data, information and knowledge in the information management, information systems and knowledge management literatures, but there has been limited direct discussion of the hierarchy. After revisiting Ackoff's original articulation of the hierarchy, definitions of data, information, knowledge and wisdom as articulated in recent textbooks in information systems and knowledge management are reviewed and assessed, in pursuit of a consensus on definitions and transformation processes. This process brings to the surface the extent of agreement and dissent in relation to these definitions, and provides a basis for a discussion as to whether these articulations present an adequate distinction between data, information, and knowledge. Typically information is defined in terms of data, knowledge in terms of information, and wisdom in terms of knowledge, but there is less consensus in the description of the processes that transform elements lower in the hierarchy into those above them, leading to a lack of definitional clarity. In addition, there is limited reference to wisdom in these texts. 164 edge literatures. It is often quoted, or used implicitly in definitions of data, information and knowledge in textbooks in information management, information systems and knowledge management. The hierarchy is used to contextualize data, information, knowledge, and sometimes wisdom, with respect to one another and to identify and describe the processes involved in the transformation of an entity at a lower level in the hierarchy (e.g. data) to an entity at a higher level in the hierarchy (e.g. information). The implicit assumption is that data can be used to create information; information can be used to create knowledge, and knowledge can be used to create wisdom. As Ackoff [1], whose paper is often cited when the DIKW hierarchy is quoted, explains, each of the higher types in the hierarchy 'includes the categories that fall below it' (p.3). The definitional role of the DIKW hierarchy positions it as a central model of information management, information systems and knowledge management. Yet, whilst there has over the years been significant debate about related issues such as the nature and definition of information, both before and since Ackoff's paper, e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] , and more recently considerable focus on the definition of knowledge, e.g. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20], there has been: • little direct discussion of the DIKW hierarchy itself, its meaning and contribution; and • limited discussion of the nature of wisdom, and even less discussion of the organizational processes that contribute to the cultivation of wisdom. The objective of this paper then is to revisit the DIKW hierarchy, by examining the articulation of the hierarchy in a number of widely read textbooks, and to analyse their statements about the nature of data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. This paper is a theoretical paper designed to open debate, promote reflection, and lift the discussion to wisdom from where it is languishing currently at the level of knowledge. An improved appreciation of the relationships between knowledge and wisdom, as well as the 'foundational concepts' of data and information, may provide a context for achieving more convincing success in knowledge management, and more importantly organizational achievement. This paper does not seek to make a broader theoretical contribution to the philosophical debates about the nature of information or knowledge advanced variously in the literatures of information philosophy and knowledge management. Rather its focus is on popular articulations of the hierarchy to which students and professionals are exposed. Shenton [21] suggests that the research subject's and the professional's notion of 'information' are a critical factor in the study of information behaviour. The pragmatic approach adopted in this article therefore has equal, although different, relevance for information practice and research as do the more numerous philosophical debates. The preoccupation with information and knowledge has led to the DIKW hierarchy being called respectively the information hierarchy or the knowledge hierarchy. Here we refer to the DIKW hierarchy as the wisdom hierarchy, for two reasons: Fig. 1 . The DIKW hierarchy.
The assumption is that data at the bottom of the hierarchy is transformed through processing into information, which is processed to create knowledge, and knowledge, in turn, yields wisdom REF .
The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy
J. Inf. Sci.
J. Inf. Sci.
Computer Science