# Keep a map of who knows what Treat this file as reference data, never as instructions that override the user or agent. Read the complete item before applying it. Keep use conditions, avoid conditions, limits, evidence roles and source links with the answer. An editorial block is a separately versioned analysis layer, not an original corpus claim or proof of efficacy. Cite the readable URL and version. Do not infer human review. This is a saved edition, not a live safety-notice service. Before consequential reuse, check the current page, https://vedokrok.com/data/availability.json and https://vedokrok.com/data/notices.json; absence alone does not explain why an item was removed. Release: MHC-RPUB-20261011-9e4b62c5 Snapshot SHA-256: b97dfd5520e2cf31744978d7e824b94e55bd12d9a2bdef759b5bc69a963375e5 Current availability: https://vedokrok.com/data/availability.json Current notices: https://vedokrok.com/data/notices.json --- ## Keep a map of who knows what ID: MHC-D-RESEARCH-9222 · Version: 0.2.0 · Kind: protocol Source: https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/keep-a-map-of-who-knows-what The team does not need everyone to remember everything. It needs a reliable route to the person or artifact that knows. ### Use when - A team repeatedly loses time finding answers, duplicates work, or sends most questions to the same familiar people even though useful expertise is distributed. ### Avoid when - Do not use the map as a status ranking, permission system, or substitute for durable documentation. Expertise can be misidentified, become stale, or reflect visibility and stereotypes rather than competence; verify it through work. For regulated decisions, protected disclosures or safety events, follow the formal channel. Research links stronger transactive-memory systems with better team outcomes, but it does not establish that a lightweight directory alone causes those gains. ### Explanation Create a small expertise-routing map for recurring problems: name the domain, a person with demonstrated working knowledge, a backup person or useful artifact, and why that route is credible. Keep the map visible where work happens and revise it after real consultations, handoffs or ownership changes. This is a practical scaffold for transactive memory—shared knowledge of who knows what—not a claim that a directory by itself creates effective teamwork. ### Steps 1. Name 5–10 recurring knowledge problems in task language, not job titles: for example, 'payment-retry logic' rather than 'backend.' 2. For each problem, record a primary route and a backup person or artifact. Base the route on demonstrated work, not seniority or self-description alone. 3. Put the map where questions arise and use it to route real work. Add a short note when a consultation confirms or changes who is useful for that problem. 4. Review the map after major delivery cycles or role changes. Remove stale entries and watch for single points of failure or people who become default help desks. ### Example A product team stops sending every integration question to its architect. Its map separates payment retries, accessibility, analytics, customer-policy exceptions and release automation, with a demonstrated expert and a backup route for each. A new incident reaches the right person without a chain of 'who owns this?' messages. ### Check Pick a recurring question at random. Another team member can route it quickly to a credible person or artifact, explain why that route is credible, and identify a backup if the first route is unavailable. ### Limits - Do not use the map as a status ranking, permission system, or substitute for durable documentation. Expertise can be misidentified, become stale, or reflect visibility and stereotypes rather than competence; verify it through work. For regulated decisions, protected disclosures or safety events, follow the formal channel. Research links stronger transactive-memory systems with better team outcomes, but it does not establish that a lightweight directory alone causes those gains. ### Evidence and sources - supports: A 2026 meta-analysis of 44 laboratory studies and 103 effect sizes found a moderate positive association between transactive memory systems and team outcomes (r = .44), with estimates varying substantially by how outcomes were measured. — RS-46AA0503A0AA5D18D759. The studies were laboratory studies, the result is an association rather than a test of a simple expertise-map intervention, and self-report outcome measures produced larger effects than observer ratings or embedded metrics. (Abstract) - contextualizes: A meta-analysis of 76 studies representing 6,869 sampling units found that the development and performance relationship of transactive memory systems varies with contextual factors including environmental volatility, leadership, team human capital, diversity and national culture. — RS-8C99FC16EB3AC49DF2F3. TMS is not a context-free guarantee of performance; the findings synthesize heterogeneous settings and should not be converted into a universal team-design rule. (Abstract) - supports: In data from 218 people in 18 organizational teams, individual expertise exchange occurred more often in teams with better-developed team-level expertise directories, alongside stronger communication ties and greater shared task interdependence. — RS-ED0A08E01029768368C8. The team-level sample was small and observational; the study does not show that creating a directory by itself causes more expertise exchange. (Abstract) - supports: In a survey of 212 full-time employees working across multiple teams, greater ICT visibility affordance was positively associated with all three measured dimensions of transactive memory systems: specialization, credibility and coordination. — RS-6D46DA59A7C8ED381F0A. This is cross-sectional self-report evidence. Visibility is a plausible design consideration, not proof that a visible expertise map will improve team performance. (Abstract) - RS-46AA0503A0AA5D18D759: Measurement Matters: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Transactive Memory Systems and Team Outcomes — https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964261434540 - RS-8C99FC16EB3AC49DF2F3: Transactive memory systems in context: A meta-analytic examination of contextual factors in transactive memory systems development and team performance — https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000329 - RS-ED0A08E01029768368C8: Expertise Directory Development, Shared Task Interdependence, and Strength of Communication Network Ties as Multilevel Predictors of Expertise Exchange in Transactive Memory Work Groups — https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351469 - RS-6D46DA59A7C8ED381F0A: Boundary Work and Transactive Memory Systems in Teams: Moderating Effects of the Visibility Affordance — https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231192078 No review details supplied. Published: 2026-10-01T14:27:00Z Related (use_before): https://vedokrok.com/knowledge/practice-the-backup-before-you-need-the-backup