Discussions and comments in a knowledge base

One of the favorite features of CogniVis Docs used by our team is the ability to conduct discussions.

Of course, there are discussions that are better and faster conducted verbally, but in my opinion, they are in the minority - especially in the case of complex debates that require deep thought, analysis, or familiarization with extensive materials. Why?

1. Accuracy and precision: Written communications allow for careful thought and articulation of ideas. In discussions on difficult topics, where every word matters, writing allows for thoughtful and precise expression.
2. Documentation: Conducting discussions in written form creates automatic documentation of conversations, decisions, and agreements. Such documentation is invaluable for archival, legal purposes, and helps in recalling agreements and tracking progress.
3. Time for reflection: Written discussions give participants more time to think about their responses, which is especially important for complex issues. This allows for a deeper understanding of the topic and better consideration of arguments.
4. Reduced emotional pressure: Written communication can help reduce the emotional burden of discussions, especially in conflict situations. The time lag between writing and reading a message can allow emotions to cool down and reactions to be reconsidered.
5. Facilitation of participation: In written form, it is easier to ensure equal participation for all participants, regardless of their geographical location or time zone. Everyone has an equal opportunity to express their opinions, which is more challenging in spontaneous oral conversation.
6. Ease of verification: Written exchanges make it easier to refer to data, documents, or previous agreements. Participants can use various sources to support their arguments, increasing the reliability of the discussion.
7. Preservation of clarity and structure: Written discussions are usually more organized and structural, which helps in effectively solving complex problems. The ability to use lists, points, and headers helps organize thoughts and arguments.
8. Inclusivity: Written form can be more accessible for people with different communication preferences, including those who may have difficulties with oral communication, such as people with hearing impairments or fluency in the language used in conversation.

However, conducting oral discussions can lead to time loss for several reasons:

1. Repetition of information: In oral discussions, there is often a need to repeat the same information to ensure all participants understand and remember the conveyed content.
2. Differences in perception: Without written confirmation, different participants may have different views on the agreements, which can later lead to misunderstandings and the need for further discussions on the same topics.
3. Lack of record: Oral agreements do not leave a lasting record, making it difficult to refer back to decisions or agreements made.
4. Difficulty in tracking progress: Without written documentation, it is difficult to monitor progress and manage the project properly, as there is no clear record of what has been agreed and what actions need to be taken.
5. Inefficient use of participants' time: Participants in oral discussions need to be available at the same time, which can be inefficient, especially when involving people from different time zones or with tight schedules.

It's important to note that written discussions conducted on corporate messengers, like Slack or Teams, are also not the best idea. Why?

1. Information overload: Corporate messengers often serve for quick, informal interactions and can become overloaded with short messages, status updates, and current matters. In such conditions, complex discussions can get lost among other information, making it difficult to focus on important issues.
2. Loss of context: In the dynamic environment of a messenger, it is easy to lose the thread of conversation, especially if the discussion is lengthy or many people are involved. Messages can be quickly scrolled past or buried by new information, making it hard to follow the course of the discussion.
3. Difficulty in archiving: Although many messengers offer search functions, they may not be efficient enough when trying to find specific discussions after a long time. Documenting complex discussions in such a tool can be incomplete or difficult to retrieve.
4. Lack of formality: Corporate messengers encourage informal communication, which is an advantage in everyday use but can be an obstacle in serious discussions requiring precision and formal tone. A lack of formality can lead to misunderstandings or understatements.
5. Technical limitations: Platforms like Slack or Teams have limitations regarding message length or formatting, which can be a barrier in the case of complex arguments or when detailed data presentation is needed.

CogniVis Docs comes to the rescue here, allowing comments and discussions to be added under each document.

As you can see, these are all very extensive, well-thought-out comments, containing many complex pieces of information, the transmission and remembering of which would be difficult in oral form or on a messenger.

Additionally, each discussion, like a procedure, should have its template. This means that a dedicated page for such a discussion should be prepared (we have a whole shelf designated for discussions), and then the topic for debate, its premises, possible solutions, consequences, doubts, and any necessary data needed for participants to make informed comments should be presented in a structured form.

Discussions in CogniVis should resemble a scholarly debate, where we rely on facts and data, and the comments of participants meet the standards we have set.