|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HUMAN LEARNING -
NATURAL DRIFT TO LOOSE COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MAJOR THEMES : Knowledge Process, Knowledge Assets, Knowledge System Tools, Value Proposition INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
I finished a paper just before Christmas that got presented in Cairo, and the conference was called 'Competition and Collaboration.' ...And I mean, that is one of the issues.... that when you start to focus on knowledge you have got to consider that maybe it is an asset you should protect. On the other hand, in collaborating, you get involved in sharing it. So there are these sorts of issues. What I observe is that companies are tending towards one of two tracks. One track is where knowledge is regarded as an resource and an asset. So you invest in patents or whatever might be necessary to package this up so it can be a tradeable asset, and protected, so that sort of reason. Companies that are tending to do that have a strong background in finance and commercial marketing sort of orientation. Other companies are using it to enhance processes, so they are taking more of a process view of KM rather than an assets view. And those companies that probably are operations-oriented. You know... innovation-oriented. And so they start to follow down another track. Now, having said that, the two are not mutually exclusive. It is just an observation that there are these two tracks. The thing is though is that if you start to mix them up you get very confused about what people are trying to do. So you have to clarify which of these tracks makes sense. It makes sense to me that different firms might choose different tracks because they are building on a pre-existing core competency in process knowledge or in asset management. So it makes sense you see, but they have done that intuitively.So I see that as one issue. So if you can start to think about which of these sort of directions best suits the firm or a part of the firm or a project then you can start to clarify what has to be done and think about the tools that we use more effectively. By way of example, I know you are
interested in competencies. If you go down the asset management
track, the competencies you focus on might be IT management and
so on and so forth. If you go down the process track then the
competencies you focus on might be more to do with the operations
of the business. So aah.... Yes, that's right. And the other thing I can persuade people to take what I call a knowledge view of the business, they will start to see it differently. What I have described is an example of taking a knowledge view. All I have asked you to do so far is to think about whether you have a preference in pre-existing competencies that make a process view useful or make and assets view useful. But we have covered a whole range of stuff....Instead of talking about knowledge management as a fuzzy thing, now it is starting to become a more concrete thing. So taking a knowledge view of the business I see is complementary to taking a workflow view or an information systems view or whatever. Because at the end of the day, all these things: knowledge, information and the way of work, all come together to be the actual way of totally running the business. And so it makes sense to put them together. That is the subject of another paper that is currently being reviewed. The difficulty is that whilst there
might be a variety of tools for analysing work flow, how businesses
actually function, a wide range of information technology tools,
some tools to positive systems, there are few understood tools
related to knowledge systems. The tool kit you have for taking
the knowledge view of the business is immature. Thait is what
I have been working on, developing different tools, so that you
can take different views of the business. Yes, analytical tools. I mean, models like have been discussed at this conference, TQM tools. I mean, just take a look at how long it has taken them to evolve. They've evolved from gadgets and fashion into things that people find genuinely useful. And so I think it is going to take
a decade for knowledge tools to reach that state. Not too many
people understand what it might be in any case. This is true. If you start to take the original view that I had that of either knowledge process or knowledge asset, then you can see parallels in existing tools in terms of asset management and asset analysis. By way of example, the financial
community is actually very good at risk analysis. It is better
at risk analysis than any of the operations, you know, community
but the two communities don't talk. There are parallels that you
can draw between tools that always exist and tools that might
be used in a different context. I guess that is what you have
to learn to convert a fuzzy kind of notion of knowledge and knowledge
management and something people can get their arms around. It makes sense to me. My original driver... was associated with strategy and corporate planning, where in an industry where it had become global, just having a particular piece of equipment wasn't an advantage...because anybody could have that piece of equipment. So I formed the view that the only way people are going to compete was by doing something by using their heads, not using physical assets in any particular way. Now, refining the way or...differentiating the way you use the assets is still the same idea. The other thing that made sense to me was that firms particularly in Australia are smaller. The firm I managed had a thousand people and that was considered big but when we started competing overseas, it was ridiculously small. The end of the day, the only thing that made sense was to actually have a variety of collaborations and realise you did not have all the knowledge but focus on what you did really well and work with some other people who did complementary things really well. So, that is the view I have taken and that is the direction I am still proceeding with generally with smaller firms these days rather than larger firms. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TOP
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
