Reflections on the Knowledge Mobilization Matrix
Written by Sefa Tese
In university, having the freedom to choose classes outside my major or toward a minor allowed me to nurture my interest in the arts. When it became (painfully) evident that drawing and painting weren’t the right fit for me though, I took my chances with digital design.
I remember eagerly yet anxiously walking into the computer lab, backpack dutifully carrying all the material listed in the requirements. I was particularly curious about the five notebooks. It seemed like a lot, considering there wasn’t a time I could recall ever filling up one.
I soon found out that they were our designated process books—canvasses for ideating, sketching, refining, and documenting all our ideas. As I took more advanced classes, I was awed by the ideas and solutions that unfolded over hundreds of once-blank pages.
Although process work was graded (quite the motivator), it was up to us to determine how deeply we engaged with different creative ideation techniques.
And now in a real-world context like the knotweed project, I quickly recognized a certain quality creative methods brought to our brainstorming and ideation sessions—structure. Structure encouraged different and unique results. Structure gave us something we could go back to. Structure brought art and science together.
Some methods were already familiar to me, such as journey and empathy mapping, while others were new. Among the few that stood out was the knowledge mobilization (KM) matrix.
The KM Matrix
The goal of knowledge mobilization is to make sure that information is easy to access, simple to understand, and, most importantly, useful.
The KM matrix comes in as a tool that helps accomplish that goal by generating practical KM ideas. It focuses on identifying target audiences and their specific information needs. The matrix maps these audiences against the 5 Ws (and 1 H)—Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How—and a “measurement” row to identify metrics that will help us evaluate success.
The KM matrix reminds me of an empathy map, though more elaborate thanks to solution-oriented questions such as:
- “Why do they need to hear these messages? Why should it matter to them?”
- “What action do we want them to take?”
- “What do they value?”
- “How can we make our efforts memorable?”
With the KM matrix, we can fit in several personas or target audiences, giving us a relatively bigger picture of how strategies may or may not differ from audience to audience.
Tackling new tasks or problems with the KM matrix
For the longest time, the mind map has been my number one go-to for ideation. However, in many cases, it was my only one (if it hadn’t been for class exercises).
As someone who wants to go into communication design and UX/UI, there’s no denying that broadening my creative process will develop and strengthen my design thinking skills and improve efficiency.
But there’s a reason why I’ve felt mind maps work so well for me. There’s something liberating about lines erupting from a focal point, each branching out in sync with my initial impression of a prompt. I find no pressure for my thoughts or ideas to make sense; I just welcome them as they come. It gives me space to try not to think too hard.
So it really helped that, at the beginning of our creative sessions, Prof. Joshua Hale reminded us to welcome every idea, no matter how odd, bizarre or silly they seemed. “If they are absurd, even better!”
I do plan to implement the KM matrix as part of my process in addressing new tasks or problems in the future. Depending on the nature of the task or problem, I would begin with mapping (mind, empathy, etc.) and then use the KM matrix to delve deeper into the personas or target audiences. Of course, I’d engage other creative methods appropriate to the task, such as the Idea Prioritization method, to determine which ideas are more promising.
Conclusion
Introducing creative methods to our brainstorming sessions not only made things fun and interesting—they also provided structure.
Each of the methods exercised different muscles and challenged us individually and collaboratively. We were discouraged from discarding ideas that seemed silly, impossible, or far-fetched. This has helped me to freely engage without overthinking and worrying about sounding ‘professional.’ Every idea could lead to a new angle I could explore, a fresher perspective, or even just a better understanding of the information I am working with.
