Measuring knowledge value?
23-Aug-02
In the paper, Dr. Markus Perkmann outlines two perspectives on measurement in the KM domain, the macro view and the micro view. If you are interested in what this means and if you want to know about his discussion of this topic and his conclusions, download the paper.
Best regards,
Details
- Author:
- René Stach
- Publisher:
- KnowledgeBoard
- Date:
- 23-Aug-02
- Categories:
- Assessment and Measurement, Theory and Terminology, Processes
- Sections:
- News
This article has been read 16911 times.
Tools
Member comments (3)
Share your views with other users: add your own comments to this item.
Measuring Knowledge value ?
In my point of view this question is related to philosophical dificulties, I mean, we are desiring to measure Quality with tools designed for quantity.
You certainly know what I mean.
However I fully agree with your conclusion.
In my work I have tried to "measure" by images or drawings, based in questionaires.
In this way the organizations can "see" something.
this reminds me of technology assessment
Hi there,
While reading the article in which much is said about the inadequacies of measurement, I was reminded of how attempts to assess technological development are shaped. Especially the mention of "cultural pockets", as a sort of incubators for cultural change, strongly reminds me of what are called niches within technological regimes. There too, "safe" environments are used/created to nurture a new technology for a while before exposing it to the competing forces of the main stream technology. Around technological development there is a huge body of literature, also in terms of elaborate case-studies that span multiple decades (e.g. the development of refrigerators, or of steampowered ships) which identify what kind of forces, actors, and decisions have helped shape the history of technologies.
The beauty to me is that these studies show that, contrary to what one tends to think afterwards, that those developments weren't at all straightforward. This gives hope to those that have to defend themselves against critical managers that ask why there isn't one single coherent answer to KM-issues: it's the relative chaos that is so promising.
Also, in the field of technological development assessment too, there are no clear cut ways for measurement. What we can do is identify relevant factors from the past, derive useful methods of reduction of complexity from them and try to apply them to our decisionmaking for the future, and our assessment of the here-and-now.
The examples given in this article of practical ways to show the effects of km-actions in my view seem to do the same thing.
It therefore might be very interesting to try and 'translate' the experiences from technological development to the realm of KM.
Kind regards,
Ton Zijlstra
the future is measurable - but needs a second, whole system, audit opposite to global accountants' competences
At an overall system level , relevant for seeing where a networking world will go, I have been studying measurement knowledge management for 5 years. Ever since the intangibles crisis reports issued in 2000 by Brookings and the EU. I am sorry to say that the business journalist bringing out the open source book mapping ithe intangibles crisis is now one year late in making the system of system methods readable. I am also sorry that 100+ knowledge angels never got one meeting to discuss the intellectual capital and social networking implications of this at every level of context deep practice - which was in my view the RTD that linked all others, as well as sustained the relevance of KM in making 21st C organsiations more humanly worthwhile.
This open source system working for connecting trust-flow and transparency around organsiational systems however big -and across spinning networks of organsiations - should finally be ready in doc files in a few weeks. Meanwhile, I have placed a SUMMARY HERE and invite those who wish to get involved to join in co-blogging from their contexts up. Chris Macrae, wcbn007@easynet.co.uk