Unknown KnownsEdit
Unknown knowns describe a kind of knowledge that exists within people, organizations, and systems but is not recognized, surfaced, or acted upon. Often discussed in the context of intelligence, governance, and risk management, the concept emphasizes that what a society or institution knows can be hidden in plain sight—trapped in tacit understandings, routines, or cultural norms that leaders fail to surface or question. The term gained prominence as part of a broader framework that also includes known knowns and unknown unknowns, helping to explain why decisions sometimes miss important information even when information is available. See Donald Rumsfeld on the original framing, and consider how Tacit knowledge shapes both policy and practice.
Unknown knowns function in many layers of modern life: in the minds of decision-makers, within bureaucratic routines, and across the networks that connect field experience to high-level summary. In governance and business alike, the failure to recognize these latent know-how assets can lead to blind spots, misaligned incentives, and preventable missteps. The idea invites a pragmatic stance: surface the hidden knowledge, audit where it lingers, and align institutions to leverage it responsibly. See Institutional memory and Knowledge management for related concepts.
The concept in depth
Origins and scope - The phrase is associated with discussions of epistemology in practical settings, where it appears as a counterpoint to what is easily visible or deliberately stated. It is not merely about ignorance but about knowledge that resides in the structure of a system yet remains unacknowledged by those who possess it. For broader philosophical grounding, see Tacit knowledge.
Relation to tacit knowledge - Tacit knowledge refers to know-how that is hard to codify or articulate, such as how a skilled operator senses when a process is going wrong. Unknown knowns extend this idea to the social and organizational realm: what people actually know, through experience, may not be recognized as knowledge by themselves or by leadership. See Tacit knowledge and Knowledge management for the methods by which such knowledge can be surfaced.
Distinction from unknown unknowns - Unknown unknowns are things we do not know that we do not know. Unknown knowns are different: they are know-how and information that do exist within a system but are not acknowledged, communicated, or used. This distinction matters in risk assessment, where basing decisions on incomplete surfaces can create false confidence. See Unknown unknowns for further framing.
Applications in intelligence, governance, and business - In intelligence and national security, unknown knowns can explain why warnings fail to prompt action: observers in the field may sense patterns that are not recognized in official analyses, leading to a gap between raw experience and formal conclusions. See Intelligence and Intelligence failure for related ideas. - In public administration, the knowledge embedded in frontline practice—operational routines, case-by-case arbiters, and the informal networks that move information—can be more accurate than formal dashboards. If leaders ignore this tacit layer, policies may miss real-world complexity. See Public sector and Bureaucracy. - In business and technology, unknown knowns show up as tacit competence inside teams, unrecorded customer insights, or systemic risks hidden in data practices. Effective risk management and data governance require structures that surface and test this knowledge, rather than relying only on top-down dashboards. See Risk management and Data-driven decision making.
Controversies and debates
Supportive view - Proponents argue that recognizing unknown knowns improves decision quality. By acknowledging tacit knowledge and promoting cross-functional learning, organizations reduce overreliance on formal models and avoid blind spots created by silos. The approach lines up with a practical, outcomes-focused philosophy: surface what’s hidden, then integrate it into policy or strategy. See Lessons learned and After-action review.
Critiques and rebuttals - Critics worry that focusing on unknown knowns can be used to dodge accountability by blaming ignorance on systemic blind spots rather than on decisions or leadership. They caution that tacit knowledge is easy to misinterpret, cherry-pick, or weaponize in service of agendas. Proponents respond that the goal is not to excuse errors but to reduce them by improving information flow, incentives, and institutional memory. See Policy failure and Institutional memory for related discussions.
Woke criticisms and responses - Some contemporary debates frame unknown knowns in the context of overlooked social factors and biases. From a conservative-leaning perspective, the core value is practical risk awareness and pluralism of knowledge sources, rather than ideological conformity. The critique that this framework suppresses attention to fairness or to marginalized voices is often answered by pointing to governance reforms that make evidence from diverse sources more accessible to decision-makers, rather than suppressing it. The key is to distinguish legitimate knowledge gaps from rhetorical tactics.
Practical implications
- Surface strategies: implement after-action reviews, cross-departmental briefings, and routine audits that force reflection on tacit knowledge. See Lessons learned and After-action review.
- Incentive alignment: ensure incentives reward both frontline accuracy and openness to challenge assumptions, rather than punishing dissenting views. See Incentive and Accountability.
- Knowledge infrastructure: invest in knowledge management, systems for documenting field insights, and channels that translate tacit know-how into codified guidance without destroying practical wisdom. See Knowledge management and Institutional memory.
- Risk governance: treat unknown knowns as a formal category in risk registers, policy reviews, and resource allocations to prevent hidden hazards from accumulating. See Risk management and Policy.
See also