2Know Magazine: Sharing KM Knowledge
2Know: Sharing KM Knowledge
November 2017 - Magazine No. 218
November 2017 - Magazine No. 218

New trends in user interface design have been changing the face of the internet for decades. 2016 had featured a number of innovative ideas in this field. The most prominent innovation was probably the Pokémon Go application which blurred users' dichotomy between reality and its virtual counterpart. Now that this possibility has become available, the importance of screen-interaction has greatly increased.
In 2017, designers created easily navigated, personally customized designs (thus saving users' time) while emphasizing more detailed indicators.
This leads us to 2018. What can we expect in terms of user interface design?
• Content- the demand for more written content has led to scrollable internet pages. This is good news for search engine optimization, yet serves as a unique challenge for user interface designers. This matter will probably keep designers quite busy in 2018.

• Video- it is true that words can lead to more richly detailed stories, but the advantage of video is that it allows telling an effective story without requiring the worker to scroll or read. Full-screen videos cause users to become more involved as well as lead to better ratings for the website.
• Typography- whether websites rely on long texts or start off with picture/video, typography will be central in 2018.
• Gradients- 2018 may possibly be user interface designers' dream-year. We will see an increased use of bright, morel vivid colors and an amplified use of gradients.

• Navigation- designing simple navigation is a goal all designers share. Simple navigation means an easy and linear navigation with an emphasis on touching, pressing or moving. Voice-recognition techniques are on a rise as well, since they do not require a menu (a fact that will obviously alter the basic method of digital navigation). Website owners must learn of voice search's effects on digital marketing.
• Illustrations- illustration as feature depends much on its purpose; illustrations can be sophisticated or basic, serious or humorous. They can even be animated. Using them can generate unique experiences for site visitors. This trend is predicted to be very relevant in 2018.
• Tabs- tabs (tiles/squares in various sites) are expected to become more popular in 2018. Tabs are a great solution for small screens and are also an efficient way to share lots of data on small space. Thanks to their mobile design being user friendly, this trend isn't going anywhere.
• No rules- towards the end of 2016, a large number of internet websites have started to think out of the box regarding their design, a trend expected to gain force in 2018.
Who, in fact, actually needs a user interface? Andy Budd, CEO of digital agency Clearleft foresees lesser use of manual user interfaces and an increase in voice-based user interfaces.

• The need for more cooperation- as personal customization gains dominance thus creating more varied possibilities, cooperation between creative, marketing and development personnel might become more relevant than ever. Long content requires talented writers while illustrations and customized typography depend on talented designers. The demand for more measurements calls for marketing to be more involved in website construction.
In conclusion, it can be said that 2018 may hold plenty of innovations in the realm of UI. Fields such as voice search will serve as a quantum leap that may possibly totally alter the concept of user interface. An extensive use of full-screen video content (as a follow-up to recent years' video incorporation trend) will lead to increased site usability. It is my personal opinion that long content will probably not generate such usability (unlike video content). We will have to wait and see whether the trends described above indeed affect user interface design in 2018.




In today's day and age in which leading companies have realized that (correct) Knowledge Management is a vital and integral component of attaining business objectives. The question is: how can we make data and knowledge accessible for users' respective purposes? Should we use constructed and divided templates or documents in which we concentrate the data?

Let us pause and consider our objective. Our central goal is to attain a state in which anyone (management, employee or client) facing a decision (be it professional or business oriented) can access the most data he/she needs in most quick and optimal manner. The following article reviews the main differences in terms of data display in organizational systems.


Accessible data

Take a service representative answering calls and evaluated based on their length, searching for data in the organizational Knowledge Management system. If every conversation involved sitting and reading an entire text document in length in search for the relevant answer, it is highly doubtful that this customer will wait on the line. Furthermore, let's consider the user's reaction. Will the user take the time to read the entire document in order to retrieve the data? This is a highly uncertain possibility. It is far more probable that over time the representative will stop using the system and rely on people around him.


But when the call representative knows he/she is accessing a knowledge item designed according to a fixed template, the answer can be found effortlessly in a matter of seconds.

Templates make Knowledge Management and its application accessible, comprehensible and user friendly.

Using templates generates uniformity of data-page display (content, location, and form), sequence and coherence. They make it easier to understand the logic behind the content's organization and locate the concentrated data on the relevant page. Sticking to structure enables the searcher to navigate and locate data quickly and simply, making this process shorter and more efficient.


In contrast, when considering an engineer or academic researcher pursuing in-depth and extensive content in varying form a single, detailed document is the preferable solution. This type of user isn't short in time and is interested in every detailed aspect he/she can get their hands on.

In conclusion, when writing knowledge or information we must first consider our main target audience.  Real time knowledge management, such as that required in call centers, is the embodiment of "less is more".  Time saving, and professionally and substantively focusing content are all vital and tools that can assist in attaining them are crucial.


Other fields, in which detailed, extensive and in-depth data is required, prefer a single document loaded with knowledge.

Now that the difference between structured and document-based Knowledge Management has been clarified, all that remains is to adapt the content writing to the relevant reader/searcher.


Written By Nurit Lin

Nearly every debriefing process, certainly those conducted according to the two leading lesson learning methodologies (namely: AAR and Classic Debriefing), lead to a moment in which we are required to identify what caused the revealed gaps and what root-cause lays behind these causes. This stage is the most a central, vital and rewarding stage of the debriefing process. This is the stage in which, following an arduous analysis of "what happened" (i.e. a sequential recap of events) and "what we expected to happen" (i.e. what is procedure in this situation) we finally arrive to a certain clarity in which everything clicks together. This comprehension is quite elating; the realization we unraveled the root problems which if solved can in turn alleviate our other obstacles. We can now make meaningful decisions.

So, how is this done? How do we move on from merely recognizing the gap between ideal and real and begin understanding their root causes? How do we ensure that we don’t remain content with unearthing the initial and superficial layer (i.e. symptoms) and drill our way to the foundation from which our problems stemmed?

Two central tools may prove useful for this task: the 5why's and a present tree:
A. A present tree is a graph of all problems we’ve identified during the review process which assists us in identifying the logical link between cause and effect, searches for the factor that led to each cause thus revealing which elements are symptoms derived from other factors and which are actually root causes. This method is referred to as a present tree since it charts the organization's current condition in terms of the review's subject. This is performed in four stages:

a. First, write down all causes identified. In event of a failure, we will use negative terms. When dealing with success, use proper terms. Each event is then numbered.
b. We then search for factors linked as cause and effect and make note of this logical connection by writing "A leads to B".
c. Pair as many factors as causes and effects as possible till you contract the tree to a single cause unaffected by another cause. This is, by definition, the root cause.
d. Now that the root cause has been pinpointed, we can suggest a solution to this initial problem. These are the lessons and insights we must transform into executive tasks so that they do not remain purely theoretical. Some perform this process by using a future tree which involved charting several possible solutions and suggesting solutions for the problems these suggested changes might generate.
B. 5why's: if you find charting a graph complex and intimidating, the 5why's methodology is the exact opposite as it is simple and easy. Developed by Taichi Ono, the mind behind Toyota's manufacturing method, it is so simple that anyone who at any time in life was a parent to an infant is familiar with the phenomenon: asking why, why and yet again why. Indeed, this method's basic principle is to ask 'why' five times regarding any identified gap in order to reach the root cause. Obviously, the amount of numbers isn't etched in stone. Some debriefs require only 3 'why's, others 8. When do we know to stop? First, when we reach an element which affects the process and is neither a fact nor a symptom. Second, when we reach elements beyond our sphere of influence.

How do we know which tool is preferable in which situation? Is the 5why's method apt for simple situations due to its simplicity and the present tree appropriate for more complex scenarios? The answer is no, just as we don't prefer classic debriefing over AAR when facing a complex case (despite it indeed being a more complex methodology). These are different tools and methodologies that can be utilized by organizations according to their culture and preference. Both debriefing processes and root cause identification tools are adapted, customized and merged in order to fit the organization's needs and conditions.


Written by Rom Knowledgeware
Fax 077-5020772 * Tel 077-5020771/3 * Bar Kochva 23 st., Bnei Brak Postal: 67135