Mattias Hultheimer writes,
>One of the main issues in the "knowledge-based" company seems to be how
>to keep the competence.
The issue is one of acquiring and keeping "intellectual capital". I agree
with your assessment that it is a matter of trying to convert individual
capital (i.e. the human variant of intellectual capital) into structural
capital (an asset of the organization) so that it stays in the
organization independent of the individual contributors.
This issue has strong technological, process, and psychological aspects.
I'll speak just about the psychological aspect since this was the
framework in which you placed your quesiton. The often quoted adage,
"Knowledge is Power", is a dominant issue in converting human capital into
structural capital. In my experience, knowledge is neither free nor
abundant in most organizations. Inside organizations, people are drowning
in an "information ocean" while at the same time they are dying of thirst
in a "knowledge desert". A quick look at Webster's definitions makes this
situation very clear.
Definition: "Information applies to facts that are gathered in any way,
as by reading, observation, hearsay, etc. and does not necessarily connote
validity."
Definition: "Knowledge applies to any body of facts gathered by study,
observation, etc. and to the ideas inferred from these facts, and connotes
an understanding of what is known."
Turning information into knowledge takes skill -- and a considerable
amount of work. Why then, you might ask, would people be willing to give
away the very thing they worked hard to get and which conveys personal
power? Some people might rely on altruistic motivations -- e.g. "I'll
share knowledge for the greater good of the organization because it's the
right thing to do." While this may work for some people, I sure wouldn't
bet my 'bottom line' on this mechanism. My inclination is to rely on
human nature and to build systems that tap into motivation that operates
at the individual and intrinsic level. Employing the WIIFM principle
(What's In It For Me) is a prime example. If the organization benefits
from shared knowledge, shouldn't the individual benefit also?
The trick is to create the culture and supporting systems to make this
"get as good as you give" scenario a dominant and pervasive theme
throughout the organization. There are many principles which can help
guide this creative effort, but I'll cite just two. Please bear in mind
that these are principles of degree, not absolutes.
Principle: Knowledge sharing systems are best grown in an organic fashion
from the bottom up rather than constructed mechanically from the top down.
The very best "knowledge sharing systems" that I've encountered are
self-organizing, self-regulating, and adaptive "communities of practice"
that have formed around common interests and a built-in desire and
objective to share knowledge. This is quite different from a top-down
imposed system where there is an attempt to mandate knowledge sharing.
The leadership challenge, of course, is to find ways to encourage and then
to nuture "communities of practice" that have goals that are aligned with
the larger organizational goals.
Principle: What you reward, is what you get. Some organizations reward
people for the knowledge they have. Forward thinking organizations that
value intellectual capital, are finding ways to reward people for
knowledge they share. This takes some very different measurement and
reward systems, but the result can be a very productive "win-win"
environment for the organization and for its knowledge workers.
I hope that you are nearing a successful completion of your thesis. Good
luck
--Douglas Jones <djones@asheville.cc.nc.us>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>