Il KM sposta il focus dal "fare" al "sapere per fare", perchè la differenza tra "fare" male e "fare" bene sta nella conoscenza che si applica alle proprie attività .
In questo senso, il lavoratore della conoscenza (knowledge worker) raccoglie, applica e genera knowledge (and relationships, which are also knowledge) to perform their tasks at an optimal and constantly updated.
Now collapsing the old paradigm of the role, skills, seniority, seen as static or dynamic concept "to jump" and not related exclusively to the variable time. In terms of knowledge and its management, the value (business) a person coincides with his knowledge (useful and relevant) to perform their jobs (current and potential), and to better manage the exceptions that often today they are now involved with almost all of the business. The ability of learning and adaptation (another form of knowledge), ie the amount of new knowledge acquired or generated per unit time, varies from person to person, and therefore the only time variable can not be the only yardstick of value (corporate) of the person.
addition, the amount of time devoted to work is no longer, too, is a satisfactory measure of the commitment of a person as the key variable is instead the amount of knowledge (useful and updated) instilled in their work. 
Therefore, it seems to me that the antiquated equation of the last century "pay vs. Dedicated time to the business in a particular role," that still governs most of collaboration work, Monsters of unfathomable limits.
I think that, for knowledge workers (which is almost everyone) needs to be redefined the psychological contract that binds them to the company and the labor system, enhancing the knowledge (actual useful) held (ie net of knowledge and experience - another form of knowledge - old) and the ability to learn and adapt. Therefore, it seems to me that the antiquated equation of the last century "pay vs. Dedicated time to the business in a particular role," that still governs most of collaboration work, Monsters of unfathomable limits. Only in this way can actually make justice to the ordeal of knowledge and the knowledge and you can think of achieving a knowledge-oriented culture and its management. 
I open topics are: 1) How to measure the knowledge of a person (the sum of the knowledge learned in the work and knowledge learned outside of work)? 2) How to distinguish between knowledge and actual useful "and" useless and obsolete? 3) How to assess the knowledge for future events (potential useful knowledge)? 4) How to evaluate the ability to learn? 5) How to assess the resilience? 6) How should the pay of knowledge (used, instilled in the company, communicated)?
>>>>> I open topics are: 1) How to measure the knowledge of a person (the sum of the knowledge learned in the work and knowledge learned outside of work)? 2) How to distinguish between knowledge and actual useful "and" useless and obsolete? 3) How to assess the knowledge for future events (potential useful knowledge)? 4) How to evaluate the ability to learn? 5) How to assess the resilience? 6) How should the pay of knowledge (used, instilled in the company, communicated)? A New Psychological Contract for knowledge workers KM move the focus from "to do" to "to know for doing," Because The difference between "to do" and wrong "to do" right stands Applied knowledge in the to someone's activities. In this way, the knowledge worker gathers, applies and generates knowledge (and relations, which are knowledge themselves) in order to perform his/her tasks at the best and in an ever and ever updated way. Therefore, the old paradigms of role, competencies and seniority, seen as static or "discontinuosly" dynamic or anyway exclusively correlated to time dimension, break down. From the point of view of knowledge and knowledge management, the (enterprise) value of a person coincide with his/her (useful and updated) knowledge for doing his/her (present and future) tasks nd for managing exections, which are often deep-rooted with almost the totality of business. Learning and adapting capability (adaptability is another form of knowledge), that is the quantity of learnt or generated new knowledge in the time unit, noticeably varies from person to person and therefore the only time dimension cannot represent any more the unique measuring road of the (enterprise) value of a person. Moreover, the time amount dedicated to work does not represent any more a satisfactory measure of someone's effort; because the fundamental unit is the quantity of (useful and updated) knowledge transfused in someone's work. As a consequence, in my opinion, the ancient last century's equation "salary vs. time dedicated to the company in a certain role", which rules most of the collaboration agreements (at least, in Italy), shows abyssal limits. I think that for knowledge workers (which are most of people) must be redefined the psycological contract that link them to the company and to the working system, evaluating the (useful and updated) knowledge (therefore, detracted of obsolete knowledge and experience - another form of knowledge) and the learning and adapting capability owned. Only this way we can take effectively into account knowledge and the effort toward knowledge and we can carry out a knowledge and knowledge management oriented culture. Open issues are: 1) How can we measure the knowledge of a person (sum of learned knowledge in working and non-working time)? 2) How can we distinguish between "useful and updated" knowledge and "useless and obsolete" knowledge?
3) How can we evaluate the "useful-for-the-future" knowledge ("potential useful knowledge")? 4) How can we evaluate learning capabilty?
5) How can we evaluate adaptability?
6) How can we define the remuneration for knowledge (used, shared with the company, communicated)?
0 comments:
Post a Comment