I applaud your plan to create an overview of the different theories and
terminology in the [keeping knowledge] area, which will later on be used
to describe the problem in question. Here are some oblique comments:
>1. How to keep the competence. Naturally many companies become sceptical
>towards investing in the "human factor" to increase the company's knowledge
>if the person invested in can leave the organization at any time, taking
>the investment with him/her. We ask ourselves to what extent this is
>really a problem.
You seem to presume that the "person invested in" a) recognizes that he or
she is the object of the company's investment, and b) will dutifully
behave as a financial investment should -that is provide a reasonable
apyback to the company
>2. Isn't it really a matter of trying to convert much of the individual
>capital into structural capital so that it stays in the
>organization independently of its actors? Doing this however raises a
>new question:
You fail to recognize the contextual and temporal nature of knowledge.
The fact that the knowledge rests with an indiviual actor (with a
distinctly human character) overshadows the stickiness of defining the
context in which a particular piece of knowledge will be used, and the
transitory usefulness of that knowledge - how is the knowledge updated
EVEN IF it were to be converted into structural capital?
>3. Are the individuals interested in "giving" their knowledge to the
>organization? Today discussions about virtual organizations and
>networks aren't too rare, but the basic idea here is that individuals
>have much more flexible couplings to organizations. Instead of belonging
>to only one organization, they see their own personal knowledge and
>competence as their possibility of competing with others in any organization.
>Logically they would not at all be interested in organizations trying to
>absorb their competence.
Absorb is the operative word. The relationship between an individual and
an organization can no longer be absorb <as in leave your personal life at
the door. We are your family> but rather one of mutual support in an
agreed to, perhaps contractual fashion.
>4. The answer might instead be to create organizations that are built to
>survive and be strong having a high rotation of personnel. If this is the
>case many of the traditional views on how to satisfy and motivate people in
>organizations such as tying them up with e.g. company-cars, and social
>benefits would maybee not work in the future since people are not interested
>in having these kind of couplings to the organization.
Although satisfaction and motivation are increasingly becoming the
responsibility of the employee, I believe, there is a need to redefine the
"coupling" between an individual and the organization.
Stuart Harrow.
--"Harrow, Stuart" <bvc2206@dcrb.dla.mil>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>