In many discussions, I find that context is often being referred to as a synonym for more data, but more data doesn't necessarily mean more context.
Organizational theory is a good way to think about context, which breaks enterprise knowledge into four categories: know-what, know-how, know-why, and know-who.
Take a sales deal.
๐๐ป๐ผ๐-๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ is the account plan, pricing, security questionnaires, and redlines.
๐๐ป๐ผ๐-๐ต๐ผ๐ is how to move the deal forward, like when to involve security and how to sequence the work.ย
๐๐ป๐ผ๐-๐๐ต๐ is rationale, like which objections indicate real risk and which approvals are routine.ย
๐๐ป๐ผ๐-๐๐ต๐ผ is the social knowledge, like who decides, who has handled a similar issue in the past, and who needs to be involved.
Most of what AI can retrieve today falls in the know-what category. The rest is trapped in scattered conversations, unwritten routines, and informal human networks.
We've spent the last 7 years at
@Glean building toward this gap. Our context layer to connect know-what, know-how, and know-who, while inferring know-why from how work actually happens.
An AI tool with access only to know-what can find the account plan but will fall short in telling you who to involve, which objection deserves attention, or what to do next.
Itโs the difference between knowing the account, and knowing how to move it forward.