Bold distinction between Knowledge and Intellectual Capital ?
06-Jan-04
It is because of this dynamic and cognitive attribute that knowledge cannot be stored in computers and books. (knowledge asset can be stored, but not the knowledge)
As part of my research project – I am trying to develop a strategic management tool based on scorecard approach to increase “Knowledge flow” in organizations. ( my view of knowledge in as explained above – dynamic)
I would like to :-
1 – Invite the view of group members on the above picture of knowledge
2- Does any member know about a paper or research work distinguishing Knowledge and Intellectual Capital as above ?
Cheers!
suleman
Details
- Author:
- suleman
- Publisher:
- KnowledgeBoard
- Date:
- 06-Jan-04
- Categories:
- Benchmarking and Measurement, Knowledge and Information Theory, KM Strategy and Vision, Assessment and Measurement, Strategy and Vision
- Sections:
This article has been read 5934 times.
Tools
Member comments (36)
Share your views with other users: add your own comments to this item.
“Culture based Knowledge Sharing” CBKS Model
Dear Friends…. Hi
Thanks for your interest, to make the discussion easier, I have uploaded the “Culture based Knowledge Sharing” CBKS Model (that I have developed over last some time) on the following link. http://www.geocities.com/sulemanlodhi/index.htm (If the link does not work pls cut and past the link in browser window)
You may like to visit the link for details; meanwhile we may carry on with the discussions here.
I would like to thank many of you who really helped me in carrying out my research work, answering my e-mail and filling in questionnaire (I can see a lot of friends smiling). The model owe a lot to the work of Verna Allee (thanks).
I would also apologize for such a long silence, but would be happy to discuss the model with anybody interested to find out more.
smiles
suleman
mathematical blinkers of Western Science
Suleman
I am most cheered by your reply to Sadiq
Unlike one sector of academics, I dont place more faith than is needed on regression analysis (correlation coefficients). To do so usually means not openly knowing interactions between variables and people (including all that's compounds most valuably as human/communal/societal relationships). To me, its a pity that so many academic theses over-prioritise this separational science. Over the weeekend, I was writing the following which may at least explain part of my perspective:
(Western) Science has always brought precision in measurement by making assumptions which separate. In particular, separability puts boundaries around the outside of what we choose to measure and by failing to measure interaction/connections within the boundarised whole.
The antidote to scientific myopia is to start developing a new map : give it as much attention as the whole, and where there is conflicting information leaders should transparently make temporary judgements which can be iteratively reviewed if all involved accept that the most valuable innovations have always meant trailblazing a path through a barrier of uncertainty. The most popular example of mapping as the way out of scientific myopia was when people first began to realise the world was round instead of flat. More technical mathematical occasions, underpinning most of 20th Century’s science came about when the map of relativity was superimposed on top of Newton’s mechanical view.
Today, we need another map – the MAP!. We all need to openly see goodwill as a whole system’s connectivity spinning around its contextual gravity. It needs to support every knowledge worker’s time being communally focuses on attending to the value multipliers of service economies. For globalization to bring progress for the majority of our 6 billion people and not rampant illwill and terror, we will need to see localities globally networked in ways that hi-trust relationships between people compound with transparency of contexts. All of this is orders of magnitude more vital as a valuation priority than when tangible accounting was given a monopoly brief to do an opposite measurement job a hundred years ago: primarily count separate products as lifeless things, note investments in machine capital but not people, and separate 90 day quarters as if they provided all the news on the company’s development...more available on request for chris at wcbn007@easynet.co.uk
Blog of Intangibles Crisis Union
explain my conclusions a little more…Part II
4- OBSERVATION
Correlation between factor promoting knowledge sharing at Individual level (IL) and factors at Group level (GL) is significant (0.861)
INTERPRETATION
Knowledge workers believe that good personality traits at individual level leads to better knowledge sharing at group level
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION
Personality traits that promote knowledge sharing at individual level and at group level, must be promoted by the management. Good individuals leads to good knowledge sharing at team level.
5- OBSERVATION
Correlation of factors between Organization level (OL) and Group Level (GL) is higher (0.882) than Organization level (OL) and Individual level (IL) i-e (0.787)
INTERPRETATION
Knowledge workers believe that organization policies are more important in promoting knowledge sharing at group level than at personal level
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION
Organization policies have stronger impact on Knowledge sharing at Group level than Knowledge Sharing at individual level. If knowledge sharing at group level is desired to be improved, the organization level policies must be improved.
6- OBSERVATION
Correlation between factor promoting knowledge sharing at Individual level (IL) and Group level (GL) is higher (0.861) than Individual level (IL) and Communication Channels (CC) i-e (0.800) or Group level (GL) and Communication Channels (CC) i-e (0.803)
INTERPRETATION
Knowledge workers believe in relationships/ social networking between individuals and within a group as more important than availability of communication Channels. Knowledge sharing is not limited to availability of Communication Channels, human interaction and attitude is more significant.
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION
Personality traits that promote knowledge sharing must be promoted by the Management. Events that develop social networking of professionals must be promoted.
explain my conclusions a little more - Part 1
Chris,
You have correctly mentioned to guard against “errors of a pre networked age” . Hopefully I have saved my self from the errors as I am focusing on human interactions –The break-up of CC used in study is as under.
1-Availability of Technical documents/ Research reports/ templates
2-Computers and Networking, portals, data bases facilitate
3-Availability of knowledge sharing activities like seminars, competitions, journals
4-Presence of Interest Groups/ Communities of practices or other social gathering,
GROUP CORRELATIONS
1- OBSERVATION
Correlation of Communication Channels (CC) is high with all groups and nearly the same with IL (0.800) and GL (0.803)
INTERPRETATION
Knowledge workers believe that Communication Channels (CC) plays an important role at all levels in knowledge sharing. The knowledge workers also believe that factors for Communication Channels (CC) is equally important at Individual level (IL) as well as Group level (GL) for effective Knowledge Sharing.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Investment in Communication Channels (CC) will have positive impact on Individual level (IL) and Group level (GL) knowledge sharing. Investment will equally benefit the employees at Individual level (IL) and Group level (GL)
2- OBSERVATION
Correlation between Communication Channels (CC) and Organizational Level (OL) factors is highest (0.906) with respect of all the other groups
INTERPRETATION
Knowledge workers that believe in importance of Communication Channels for Knowledge Sharing also strongly advocate that organization policies must also promote KS
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Investment in Communication Channels (CC) must be supported with better organizational policies for maximum benefits of knowledge sharing
3- OBSERVATION
Next highest correlation is between factors at Organizational Level (OL) and Group Level (GL) (0.882).
INTERPRETATION
Knowledge workers giving high priority to factors promoting knowledge sharing at Group level (GL) also give high priority to the need for improving organization policies to promote knowledge sharing.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Organization policies play an important role promoting knowledge sharing at Group level.
Thanks for the comments…….,
Dear Saddiq
Saddiq you are very right in pointing the contribution of Sufis on explaining knowledge and modes of its transfer….. I am thinking seriously of including a chapter on Sufis in my thesis… specially the relation ship between Love and Transfer of Knowledge and maybe something on ego as a barrier of knowledge transfer.
Knowledge/knowledge assets vs. wisdom/knowledge
Dear Suleman,
I assume by knowledge you mean wisdom and by knowledge assets mere knowledge. Now, knowledge is stored, indexed and retrieved; as well as imparted, taught and acquired while wisdom is entirely a different story e.g.
How Prophet Yusuf (Josef)knew about intrepretation of dreams while in prison, and
How could Mughal empror Akbar the great, who happened to be an illiterate, declared, "throne or glow" while deciding to go for battle against Hemu Bakkal (Panipat-II) and later ruled over India successfully drawing on the wisdom he chose to collect from his NOratan (ministers).
The Holy Quran stress on acquiring knowledge but reserves wisdom for chosen few, like Lukman and Muslim Mystics (Sufis)are of the view that end-point of knowledge is the start-point of wisdom.
Perhaps a serious reading of material such as THE MYSTICS OF ISLAM by Reynold A. Nicholson and Kashf al-Mahjub - (Revelation of the Mystery : English translation by Reynold A Nicholson) - http://www.ecademy.com/module.php?mod=club&op=forum&c=1593&t=168311#endm
Kind regards
Sadiq Baig
a way to look at KM if we dared
One way to look at KM is to audit where an organisation is or has lost connectivity (of knowledge flows as well as behaviours that are different if connectivity is rewarded and relentlessly audited). This is a daring prespective because if you study measures coming from accountants , these systemise separability. In other words a connectivity audit puts system relationhips and trust-flow back in which tangible accounting has taken out quarter after quarter with scary consequences for sustainability of every large sector, as well as dire democratic consequences where people's governments fail to wake up to transparency.
If I understand your stated results, within the 4? parameters you modelled , you are finding huge value in extra connections. I think as extended model might include even more parameters of connecyivity within its scope - eg here
Overwhelmingly, your model sounds like good news in what it points to and KM (if it is not to repeat past errors of a pre networked age where machines not people connections were valued) more research should be done testing systemic connectivity/interactivity
I am writing this to share my research finding with you
Dear Friends,
It was in March 2004 that I sent you a questionnaire to help me developing a Score Card to improve Knowledge Flow in Organizations
Summary of Research
The KM Model I proposed assumes that
1-Knowledge is viewed as a verb, it is found in actions, beliefs and perception of human networks and interactions.
2-Knowledge worker’s behavior at individual level, Group Level effects knowledge flow in organizations
3-Group behavior effects knowledge flow in organizations
4-Communication Channels play an important role in knowledge sharing in organizations
5-Management Policies (Organizational Culture) effects knowledge flow in organizations
The Regression applied to the data collected gives the following equations where
IL = Individual Level
GL = Group Level
CC = Communication Channels
OL = Organizational Culture/ Policies
Regression results
1- Knowledge Flow - Individual and Management Policies
Dependent Variable = IL
i) IL = 1.24+0.50 (OL) + 0.213 (CC) + 0.115 (GL) R = 0.894
2- Knowledge Flow - Group and Management Policies
Dependent Variable = GL
ii) IG = 0.390+0.695(OL)+0.103(CC)+0.145(IL) R = 0.896
3- Knowledge Flow - Communication Channels Management Policies
Dependent Variable = CC
iii) CC = 0.704+0.564(OL)+0.009(GL)+0.241(IL) R = 0.894
Interpretation of Results
#1- Using relation (i) & (ii)
Constant of regression equation for IL (Knowledge Sharing -Individual Level) is much higher than the constant for GL (Knowledge Sharing – Group Level) regression equation
This shows that as an inherent quality Knowledge flow at individual level is much higher than at Group level. Implies that, as the Group size will increase its inherent ability to share Knowledge will decrease. Thus efforts are needed in large organizations to improve knowledge sharing.
#2- Using relation (i) & (ii)
The OL (Organizational Culture) coefficient for Group level is higher than for the individual level.
Organization Culture (OL) has a much stronger impact on knowledge sharing at Group Level that at individual level.
#3 – Using relation (iii)
The CC (Communication Channel) coefficient for IL is higher than GL. This shows that stronger Communication Channels efforts are needed at Group level.
Implies that larger groups need more efforts in communication for better knowledge sharing.
#4
R for all the relations is strong, giving a good fit for the model.
Comments needed
I would appreciate your valuable comments on the following
1.Do you think that results based on empirical data are of some value ?
2.Can this model be used as a tool for predicting organization behavior for knowledge dynamics.
3.Can we draw any more results from the relations?
4.Any other question that you may like.
Thanking you once again for your help.
India-Pakistan: "Experiencing the Other Side"
Hi Chris,
I am late in giving you the link where to find my input for the book; here it is:
http://www.ecademy.com/module.php?mod=club&c=1593
Kind regards
Sadiq
india & pakistan
Sadiq, you and your friend have a wonderful idea. Can I post an extract of it in other spaces and if so what contact point should I link it with
cheers
chris
meandering thread part 3
Edvinsson continues:
The financial reporting and its position on the global news agenda have become an obsession, which furthermore is becoming more and more illogical. What we now need is much more intelligence about the intangibles and where value is created. For example if you are investing in your competence upgrading is that a loss or something of value? In the old accounting practice it is regarded as a loss. It is the same way with research and development. Is that a loss or a potential future? This abuse of the management accounting is resulting in anorectic leadership behaviour, trying to starve the organisations into the future, especially by savings on the important nourishment of intangibles such as knowledge, R&D and learning.
Until sailors could measure longitude, they were frequently lost at sea. The same is the case for our value generating leadership of today. The difference between knowledge economics and tangible product based economics demands a similar shift in the way we view the Corporation and track its value creating progress. We have to take a lateral perspective regarding alliances, networks, cultural context, knowledge recipes and other intangibles, usually outside the balance sheet perspective. We also have to shift to other deeper indicators such as those about time, rhythm, brain, relationships, knowledge recipes, innovations or in other words tacit knowledge indicators.
Knowledge has become the key source of value creation and wealth not only at an organisational but also on a national level. And enterprises, particularly those in the public sector, are in danger of undermining their future success by focusing exclusively on financial assets in their accounting procedures. It is time for a quest for a new approach for gaining back the sense of meaning making, based on lateral thinking, rather than just money making. It is a challenge not to be prisoners of vertical thinking, called bottom line syndrom
Value in the knowledge economy is inextricably linked to radical change in both societal assumptions and business models. A new political leadership agenda is evolving around the IC and KM of nations, with the focus on: • How to visualise the knowledge capital of nations; • How to develop intelligence flows within and between knowledge capital clusters • How to cultivate efficiency and renewal of the knowledge capital of nations; • How to capitalise on knowledge capital, by new innovative social systems, in terms of the collective wealth of nations.
During the 1990’s the research by Professor Paul Romer at Stanford University, USA has highlighted the exponential value of multiplying knowledge recipes as an exponential value curve, called the law of increasing marginal utility. In other words the more connections, relationships and interactions in a network society or organisations the higher potential value is emerging.
meandering thread part 2
Edvinsson continued:
Currently, organisations, as well as societies as a whole, are like 18th century ships, charting their positions with only north/south navigational tools. Plotting a course solely based on traditional financial reference points leaves them blind to the opportunities on the lateral horizon. Lost on a turbulent sea of change and without a lateral navigational tool to guide them, they cannot navigate the uncharted challenges the management of intangibles is presenting, in particular to the public sector.
Most attention is still devoted to the financial map, in a world of corporations where the tangible assets account for often from 0.1 % to 25% of a company’s stock market value. For these assets the organization has CFO and controllers, software systems called ERP and the whole profession of auditors. But what do we have for the intangibles and intellectual capital? So far it is mainly CRM-customer relationship management systems?
meandering thread part 1
I think we've travelled a few crosroads from the title of this therad. I found this text yesterday from Edvinnson whom many rate as being closest to the specific croosroads of KM and IC
http://dataforeningen.no/edok/2003/dokumentasjon/Edvinsson.doc
In the 18th Century, the British Navy could not navigate with any precision from east to west. Consequently, many 18th century ships lost their bearings, in the same way that today’s analysts who only concentrate on financial capital do. The case of Enron illustrates a recent example of a similar problem in the world of accounting. In the public sector it might be even worse, as the focus today is strongly on balancing the budget of financial capital. The result is that public sector organisations are being starved of the assets that will safeguard their future, into an anorectic behaviour. Extensive cutbacks are robbing them of the crucial nourishment offered by intangibles such as experts, knowledge recipes, R&D, learning as well as alliances and networks for social innovations.
The solution to the longitude problem was discovered not by Navy professionals or by leading university academics, but instead by a knowledge outsider: a watchmaker by the name of John Harrison, who discovered an innovative answer to the problem. In order to get a deeper understanding about the principles of wealth creation, it is essential to develop a similar lateral perspective. An approach whereby assets are simply recorded on a balance sheet is far too narrow. A lateral approach to accounting is necessary to include the intangibles and non-financial assets of knowledge creation, networks and relationships. The wealth of organisations, as well as the wealth of nations, lies in the space in which human capital and structural capital interact.
Knowledge of peace and Knowledge for Peace
Hi Suleman and Chris,
Thanks for prompt response, so alluring to think more.
It may be out of place, but must not be altogether, if I copy here my response on brainstorming for a book that an Indian friend, Charu has so kindly embarked on and has gathered around a panel of 8 (4 from Pak and 4 from India). Panel from Pakistan is short by one, and I hope Suleman should consider filling the slot - I am asking Charu to get in contact with you, Suleman on this. Now edited form of what I wrote for the Panel:
==
“Ah Love! Could thou and I with Fate conspire, To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire, Would not we shatter it to bits – and then, Re-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire! -Omar Khayyam, translated by Edward Fitzgerald”
Q.1 Was the creation of Pakistan a necessity?
What is the necessity in the first place? If it is relative to time, the question and answers both are redundant and would not serve any purpose except reviving the good or bad memories and do not we need only the good one to dream for a dream – peace if that is one of the objectives of the proposed book? Since near past, we in Pakistan know of ‘necessity’ as a legal term which can better be used to legalize the illegal – laurels to late A. K. Brhoi and also to Sharif ud Din Pirzada edited
One may agree or not, what I want to convey is that Pakistan, and at times even India, has the blessings from across the oceans for omissions and commissions and that Pakistan will stay in tact even if it has to take numerous ‘U’ turns on the behest of others despite claims to the contrary. Why nobody questions how Israel was established despite the fact recorded in “Flying Dragon”, written by a British Army Officer back in 1948
Therefore, people of Pakistan and India should, at least from now, live in peace for the sake of humanity, particularly when Mother Tressa and Dr. Akhtar Hamid Khan are no more for going to the slums to cajole the lesser children of God for living on ‘left-overs’! Are we ready? Let’s start though ‘ABC Troika’ means Army+Business+Clergy (Edited –space!
, linking knowledge with love ??????…..
Dear Sadiq
I was not taking part in the conversation for some time, as I was pre-occupied.
As you said “ whatever the knowledge is, or all about, or how it can be acquired, -------------- let us see how to use it more for peace than war.”
After studying (with my limited view) the thoughts of some of western philosophers on knowledge (I do not like to differentiate into eastern or western philosophers – as knowledge is one and the same reality)
I turned to eastern thought on the subject; and came across the name of Kindi and Al-Farabi (tenth centaury philosopher, following the brain wave of Aristotle ). And still later Ghazali.
Ghazali gave a completely new direction, linking knowledge with love ??????…..
for days I was thinking that am reading a wrong book as I could not conceive the link of “Knowledge and love” Later Rumi and recently Iqbal followed the same thought.
Rumi looks upon Satan as the embodiment of pure intellect, which, though valuable in itself, is likely to become an instrument of terrible destruction without the guiding hands of love.
I would also quote Iqbal from his lectures on modern-man _____ “ In the domain of thought he is living in open conflict with himself; and in domain of economic and political life he is in open conflict with others. He finds himself unable to control his ruthless egoism and his infinite gold-hunger which is gradually killing all higher striving in him and bring him nothing but life-weariness.”
Socrates argues that knowledge and virtue are so closely related that no human agent ever knowingly does evil: we all invariably do what we believe to be best. Improper conduct, then, can only be a product of our ignorance rather than a symptom of weakness of the will
A number of philosophers in East turned to spiritualism in their quest for knowledge. There is a strong link between Knowledge (used as noun) its purpose, Love and The Reality (God – may it be Christian / Hindu /Bhuda/Muslim etc.). They have presented interesting ideas, which I would like to share with the community some time.
Dear Chris, - You have always given a good feedback,__ Looking forward to your comments ……….
Smiles
Suleman
brand architecture for peacemaking
Elsewhere some Indian friends made up a presentation on this
Perhaps the crucial categorisation of knowledge needs to be split like this:
there is some zero sum type of knowledge where basicly the one who knows more takes from the other
there is another type of learning which multiplies in use way beyond zero sum
clearly peace involves many action learning values (to do with human respect, trust, authenticity, relationship reciprocity) that can be multiplied if they can be planted by people of good faith. So I am absolutely certain that the world should prioritise searching for the 10 humanitarian networks which each have a specific peace expertise and are open to share how the method etc works- because networks that are exchanging goodwill learning (and not money) can multiply each otherts powers very quickly - and provide our best systemic potential for faith, hope, and lope multiplying across pur human races
examples of N*N*N*N
probably include
http://www.practiceofpeace.com
http://www.simpol.org.uk
more speculatively http://www.bethechange.org.uk though I'd really love to know where alumni of Gandhi are most practising community
but you tell me which is the greatest humanitarian netwoirk you trust and why- that would be wonderful knowledge to share here.
Knowledge is a double edge sword, how to wield it for making peace?
Hi Suleman and Chris,
Interesting debate! I am not privy to knowledge but those have it can see far ahead. More or less, it is more divine than can acquire – Umer Khayyam, Hafiz Sherzni et al live very humble life in their time but future have all laurels for them. Similarly, was it George Washington of Lincoln who used to write on earth with charcoal to gain knowledge?
Anyway, whatever the knowledge is, or all about; or how it can be acquired etc etc, whether can be stored or not; let us see how to use it more for peace than war.
For example, let us look at Nobel and his dynamite. I wonder why entities like Bofors have to bribe to sell arsenals while Nobel Prizes are claimed to be given to those most of whom are bonafide for life?
Is it application of knowledge or the knowledge itself that made Mandela so great?
Sadiq Baig
good and ?
Suleman: I like the sound of multipliers- how might you expres a multiplier in a vluation model if the info shows that's right?
Why do you (and where's your exact reasoning?) say we cant measure the dynamic of knowledge; I believe we wholly can, and if we can't we should close down KM (or at least relegate to a specialism that doesnt merit a million euro conversation space on public funds)
Thanks for the question ! :-)
I will be brief --- as I myself cannot read more than a page on anything, unless I find it very pulling.
As we cannot measure knowledge taken in its purely dynamic view (my previous postings advocate this) directly, I have broken it into two parts.
a) Measuring Knowledge Assets (passive form of knowledge - I have considered Knowledge Assets synonymous with IC ( my previous postings ) and
b) Monitor factors (multipliers) that promote flow of knowledge in organizations
The two measurement systems combine to form a KM system for an organization. The Knowledge Scorecard (survey ) is focusing the factors that promote knowledge sharing.
I believe that if we have good multipliers of knowledge flow in an organization, the Knowledge Assets would also increase over a short period of time. Conversely if we do not have knowledge multipliers the Knowledge Assets would deplete.
In my view (based on my limited work) we do not need to measure knowledge in conventional scales, especially dollar value. It is also not practical as knowledge has a value based on its demand/ need and the demand of same knowledge will not remain constant. It may change from critical to useless in a second.
At the best we may measure knowledge assets (passive view) and to it add an index (multiplier) calculated to represent knowledge flow dynamics in that particular organization.
The hypothesis of the thesis is that KM is a human centered issue, therefore KM solutions must focus on improving human interactions. – If you need more info take the survey or discuss with me!!
Cheers
suleman
For those of us who dont have time to do the full survey - or need convincing we have time - could you perhaps give us an example of one of the survey's most important hypotheses that you know you have a way of analysing if only people complete the whole survey
I ask because as someone who has designed surveys in 30 countries of the world for as many years (including ironically ones that have looked at the value of EU investments) this hypothesis question is the central one defining whether a survey is being used to further knowledge in a way that will communicate a big result. You could say any survey can increase the intellectual and social capital or everyone it networks through, or do nothing in terms of validating something that is also simple and emotional enough to explain that people also will virally gossip about. which is yours?
This generalises. On conversation boards those who manage to ask great questions stimulating open and deeply human discourse are perhaps the most valuable communal agents we have. I am unaware of whetger CoP experts have a simple reference/bookmark to the organising power of this idea. If not could they please work on it.
On-line survey developing “Knowledge Scorecard”
Dear Friends,
With reference to my previous posting on this, the on-line survey for developing “Knowledge Scorecard” is now also available. You may follow the steps given below to take the survey.
1)- Click on the following URL: http://www.AdvancedSurvey.com
2)- When you arrive at the Advanced Survey homepage, type in survey number 11778 in the "Take A Survey" box.
The survey may take 20 to 30 minutes if your link is slow, alternatively you may ask me to send you the same over e-mail as word attachment. (Off line)
Real time results are available to the participants at the end of the survey. (The real time results are only a summery, but I will share the complied results at my end with all interested.)
Cheers
Lodhi
mailboxsal@yahoo.com
Your Input needed
Dear Friends
I have completed a short questioner for developing the “KM Scorecard” as said earlier. If you have 10-15 minutes to spare please send me an e-mail at mailboxsal@yahoo.com so that I may send you the questioner, for your input.
The study I am conducting is part requirement for my MPhil degree.
The study investigates the role of organization culture, availability of communication channel and employee attitude in an organization for leveraging and development of Knowledge Assets.
Organization is studied as a socio-technical network and a Knowledge Scorecard is developed for monitoring factors that influence “Knowledge flow” in organizations.
1)- I will be more than happy to share and discuss results with all respondents
2)- I would also be glad to send excerpts from the thesis for evaluation/comments from the senior member interested in the topic.
Smiles
When we pull on a string, we see that it is connected to everything else in the world
Hi, Ian Mc Donald Wood.
Your idea of “Strategic Leadership tool” is very interesting and has gravity - When we talk about “Managing Knowledge” with a view of knowledge as under (re – quoting from my previous postings)
“”
Wiig (1993) -Truths and beliefs, perspectives and concepts, judgments and expectations, methodologies and know-how
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995b) - Commitments and beliefs created from these messages
Spek and Spijkervet (1997) - The ability to assign meaning
Davenport (1997) - Valuable information from the human mind
Davenport and Prusak (1998a) - Experiences, values, insights, and contextual information
Quigley and Debons (1999) - Text that answers the questions why and how
Choo et al. (2000) - Justified, true beliefs
The authors use similar words in describing knowledge like truths, beliefs, concepts, ability to assign meaning, experiences and value, representing a dynamic nature of knowledge stressing that knowledge can not be treated as an object.””
In Knowledge Management we need to focus on developing “Knowledge Leadership and related environment” The idea of proposed Scorecard is also to monitor the Socio-technical factors promoting “Knowledge Flow”. (developing Knowledge Leadership is a social factor)
I think that we should consider developing “Knowledge Leadership” and type of corporate leadership needed in the “Knowledge Economy”.
Good Luck
Suleman
We may find some interesting views.
Hi, Ian McDonald Wood
I am working on similar lines, but yet may be from a different prospective – You are right in valuing human leadership and its development as a key factor.
My score card is focusing on “social factors” at individual, group and organization level that would aid in developing knowledge flow in organizations ---
Kindly send me your paper on “i-Value” as we may find some interesting views for discussion
Cheers
Suleman
mailboxsal@yahoo.com
A strategic management tool
Balanced Score Card has real limitations when it comes to enabling an active process that will focus leaders and people in organisations on growing the intellectual capital and intangible assets.
This is why we developed a strategic leadership tool (I hesitate to use management) called i-Value.i-Value provides a focused means of harnessing people's knowledge of the business in the business. It helps leaders to set aspirations for what they want to achieve and then aligns everyone around the critical issues that matter.
Have a look at www.millenn.co.uk and click on i-value. Several companies have adopted it and are now beginning to get real benefit from it.
None of the briefing papers on the site refer to i-value. However, if this is of interest e-mail me and I will send you an up-to-date briefing paper on the technique.
Regards
Ian McDonald Wood
Knowledge is static: knowing is dynamic, as is IC
I'm trying to give up on Knowledge as a static noun....Knowing is a dynamic verb and has a much closer relationship to IC....... which with many others...... I view in fundamental terms as a process........ a process kept alive by interactions [between people..with all the unequal Nietzschean connotations of trust and power.....and the Habermasian idea of mutual recognition and reciprocity.....and also increasingly mediated by technology, internet, death of distance and so on.....] and both strong and weak relationships.
Further, IC creation is contextual..... ....maybe there are some generalities out there.......but even if there are, they are probably at such a high level of generality that they may provide little guidance in the everyday situations that most of us find ourselves in.........and further, a very large amount of the "background knowing" in any social context is quite simply not available to us no matter what researh paradigm or wing of the philosophy of science we subscribe to..... to study IC is to accept a certain level of ignorance ab initio...........and I do not think that we can put a "number" on that at the moment.............. however, I stay hooked on IC research [theory & empiric]......... and this looks like an interesting site to tune into every now and then ...........
Dave O'Donnell
yes, truth is the simplest value multiplier of all
like your perspective suleman, will try and get some experts on truth to join in
en passant, I was at a centenary celebration of Johny von Neumann's in December; mathematicians are in a catch 22 - they used to be the purest researchers of truth systems, but von neumann was the last one to be able to get funds and to choose what maths was most in him to research; if your governments of place dont let your best (maths and other) thinkers have that right and encourage them to openly multiply the practical stuff that their truths can lead to, you don't get computers or any of this here technology;(Johny was at princeton where all the top people around him hated his computer science, so he made sure other universities and IBM had open licences to experiment with it otherwise Princeton would have been the beginning and ending of 20th c computing- will that true story told one click away from knowledgeboard's logo? ought it be?
the greatest technical advantage Europe could achieve at a stroke is to banish all intellectual patents with longer than 3 weeks; that was a Neumann suggestion, knowing full well that any open patent holder in a multiply-learning area already had a central networking advantage; its also how the decoding of the human genome won Cambridge's open scientists a nobel- all academics and researchers take true note please-
chris
by the way, let's debunk complexity- as a transparency system mapper I value multiply with open space & simplicity, and you can discuss the latter with some great mentors here during January 2004, who are also one of the world's most consistent experimenters with virtual community
Research is a quest for truth.
Dear Chris Macrae thanks for your input, I agree that the concept of “open maps” is fundamental for research in Knowledge Management and we should follow all leads to find the truth.
Fundamental to my research is how to view “Knowledge” [ I am deliberately not using “define knowledge” as this would again undermine my view of “Knowledge”] .
Quoting you, “Knowing that you will choose different reference points” . I have come across the following views on “Knowledge” by some writers.
Wiig (1993) -Truths and beliefs, perspectives and concepts, judgments and expectations, methodologies and know-how
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995b) - Commitments and beliefs created from these messages
Spek and Spijkervet (1997) - The ability to assign meaning
Davenport (1997) - Valuable information from the human mind
Davenport and Prusak (1998a) - Experiences, values, insights, and contextual information
Quigley and Debons (1999) - Text that answers the questions why and how
Choo et al. (2000) - Justified, true beliefs
It is interesting to note that all the authors use similar words in describing knowledge like truths, beliefs, concepts, ability to assign meaning, experiences and value, all of these words represent a dynamic nature of knowledge stressing that knowledge can not be treated as an object.
Knowledge is ‘what we know’; it is that which is in our heads. The use of knowledge involves cognitive processes, including perceiving, thinking, remembering and learning. These are internal, intangible processes that cannot be managed by an organisation. Whereas information is tangible, it is an external representation, and therefore capable of being captured and managed (Wilson, 2002).
The idea of bringing up this discussion in the first place is to settle on some view of “Knowledge” so that the rest of the structure build on that view is stable.
Cheers !
Allee's Library
I would hugely recommend anyone doing research on measurement scorecards and KM, to begin with Verna's library http://www.vernaallee.com./standard%20pages/Library.htm
-it's a benchmark space
I am not sure if the following personal declaration is relevant but anyway:
These days when I look at the annual report of any company as laid out by a big 5/4 accountant I crease up with laughter or tears. Look at all those numbers tabled to add up to one static total. Hey value multiplies, variables interact, whole systems have deep compound impacts on where the networked world is spinning yet we are governing with stuff that assumes multiplication and compound system dynamics don't exist; which ring fences borders that need to be selectively porous as nature would intend. And that way lies disaster, one that can implode an Adnersen as much as destroy the safety of a NASA before we get to even less transparent nightmares like an enoron or a worldcom, or a paralamat. And at this scale of things we are not just talking big business but terrible social impacts that are accumulating in the pipeline to all our childrens' futures http://www.collapsingworld.org http://www.practiceofpeace.com
So what I am saying is I refute the hypothesis that KM, intangibles, value systems need to ultimately justify themselves in old numbers and their precision which assumes management is separation down to the smallest bits ; most of the value futures should require the old numbers to have to justify their transparency in new forms of goverance maps that mix 3 subsystems http://www.knowledgeboard.com/download/3255/valuesun.ppt: the old industrial-age one of hierarchy of information flow, the ever human action learning ones of self- and team- organising and the new one of collaborative networks of organisations (mixing big business , big gov, big humanitarian networks and SMEs and people)
We are on a journey to the networking worldwide and its fabulously diverse localities of human being where interesting questions -and open maps - rather than precise valuation algorithms is all I have time for. Unfortuantely, very few academic (or research) barons will give that journey an equal opportunity of time; and I have no idea how to help any researcher who is not permitted to do an open inquiry. So:
1) you need to know which research culture you are in
2) knowing that you will choose different reference points
I believe it to be the case that Allee's is the best in-between library which will help whichever way you have to go, but equally I openly look forward to hearing of boomarks to other system-inspired libraries
I had hoped to meet Verna during her European tour because I have more questions than answers but unfortunately family illness intervened several times...
I agree with Verna Allee
Dear Verna Allee
I have read your paper, and you elucidated same (as my concept) point very clearly in your posting ! . The idea of bringing this topic under discussion was to highlight the dynamic attribute of “Knowledge”
In my view the researchers working in the domain of Knowledge Management are “not focused”, as generally speaking there is no agreed distinction between a “knowledge Asset” which I consider to be a form of “Intellectual asset” and “Knowledge”, which I consider must have “cognitive existence”.
KM frame works must cater for Knowledge Assets as well as Knowledge with its dynamic attributes for creating value in organizations.
It would be a major contribution of this group for advancement of KM, if an “agreement” is somehow reached, based on a research from psychology / epistemology / cognitive sciences or any other domain. This agreement would result in a more focused research in future.
Conducting a poll on this will not solve the problem ! – I think that the group should look for research based answers.
Ponder !
Suleman
Knowledge and Intangibles
Dynamic relationships and interactions is the key. Understanding intangibles as assets is only a small part of the picture. It is more important to understand how we leverage intangibles such as knowledge to create value. For those of you who are interested in a mapping methodology that links knowledge and other intangible exchanges to both financial and non-financial scorecards, there is a pdf white paper on The Value Network Approach that can be downloaded for free on my website. It is in the library at http://www.vernaallee.com. Chris, I think you have some familiarity with this and can maybe better judge its relevance to this discussion. I am afraid I only popped in late and have not been following closely. My apologies if I have missed the mark.
great but one question
Where you mention scorecard, how do you expect people to model the interactions of the variables on your socrecard? This is where most scorecards lose the plot, systemically, mathaematically and in every way that matters for open human relaionship value
They have spent so much time and expertise defining the variables that they dont do the second part of the work and map out how the varaibles themselves dynamically interact. And they dont provide a simple model for questioning any of the assumptions that will have got built in along the way. They are not open to met-disciplinary interrogation...
cheers
chris macrae
we demonstare at least the idea of the oposite open scorecard approach at http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/kmei.html
A summary
Dear Members
Thank you for your interest._ I will try to be brief yet comprehensive in answering the questions asked.
In reviewing literature on KM, I have often seen authors, switching between KM and IC domain frequently and during this swapping they themselves seem to feel uncomfortable.
A large number of models for KM are suggested by authors, probably because (in my opinion ) each author views “Knowledge” differently.
We see that models for KM are rather borrowed form IC Management; these models try to measure or monitor Knowledge Assets.
In order to develop a successful model for KM, we would first have to remove variations in the definition of “Knowledge” as used by different authors.
I would like to draw my definition of word “Knowledge” from studies in Philosophy and Psychology.
In dealing with KM models, I view it in two logical parts, one dealing with “Knowledge Assets” and its monitoring which is synonymous with “Intellectual Capital” and may be dealt with using any of the IC management tools.
The second part consists of “Knowledge” with a dynamic attribute, this is the true “Knowledge”, as we are dealing with it dynamically. There is a need to focus on this aspect of KM ( Collaborative environment of Sveiby )
My focus is on this dynamic part of KM model. I am trying to develop a strategic tool for the managers to help them in taking research-based initiative to increase the “Knowledge flow” in their organizations.
I view that dynamic form of “Knowledge” rests in “Human brain ” and “Relationships” (Networks). Using the Scorecard approach I am monitoring some indicators at “individual level” relating to individual behavior, similarly at “group level” behavior and finally at “organization level”. Indicators on communication channel (Hard and Soft channels ) are also monitored.
The purpose of using the scorecard is to monitor all of these indicators and by analyzing them, management may take decisions to improve “Knowledge Flows” at different levels, or see bottlenecks in “knowledge flow”. The scorecard would tell the management.
Why are we not gaining (or gaining ) from all the investment we have made in the IC Management ?
The scorecard approach would also indicate the result of the initiatives taken by the management over a specified period..
I believe that KM and IC may not be viewed as competitors, or one as a sub-set of the other. Both are inseparable, in the sense that one would not survive, if we try to remove the other. And it is the cycle of converting “Knowledge” into IC and back again into “Knowledge” that gives strength to the organization.
My questioner for the scorecard on “knowledge flow” is nearly ready and it will soon be online
Questions and criticism is welcomed.
Cheers !
Suleman
Why a scorecard device?
Hello suleman,
I agree with your approach about knowledge as a dynamic process, which increase its value since someone adds a new cognitive elements and transforms the original one "knowledge asset". But,could you explain us, please, how is your management tool based on a scorecard model? and why do you think this approach can increase a "dynamic" knowledge flow?
Please, give us a little description of your management tool.
Thanks
Rosanna
are you sure?
Why would you want a scorecard approach when you appear to describe a multiplier dynamic?
In other respects, I think your view maps well with those mathematically valued at the KMEI sig http://www.knowledgeboard.com/community/zones/sig/kmei.html
research on corporate culture
Thanks for the great approach - Knowledge sharing model focusing on corporate culture.
"Corporate culture is developed from the policies followed by an organization, and plays an important part for the promotion and development of knowledge sharing/ innovation activities in an organization."
We should also research, understand the corporate culture of the given company / the governmental department / the research team etc. in order "to improve knowledge utilization in organization."
That also means to share knowledge on and bit by bit change (if it is possible) CORPORATE CULTURE.