In response to the -Pay for Play- comments in the "Paradigms and Shared
Vision" thread, various comments on the fate of thinkers in the
"Downsizing Literature" thread, and Clyde Howell's closing comment in
LO4041 on the applicability of science and knowledge development, I offer
these thoughts:
IMHO, far to often it happens that the _thinkers_ within a company that
seem to be getting _paid_to_play_ and are subsequently released as part of
overhead cost cutting action, end up in that situation because the
_knowledge_ products_ they deliver are not seen as being directed toward
the satisfaction of actions and decisions deemed critical to the success
of the company.
(I wonder how many of us on this list have found ourselves in that
situation)
Within that long winded statement I think there are a couple of things
worth examining. First of all I agree with what I think Bernie DeKoven is
getting at when he says that the best of our knowledge creators (the
thinkers), who always seem to be having too much fun to be 'really'
working, need to be rewarded rather than being systemically punished for
their "playfulness." I think I can safely say that we all agree on the
need to encourage and reward those who have the talent to discover new
knowledge.
I also agree with Clyde Howell when he says the real value of
non-contextual knowledge is lost on those who really need it - those who
need to apply knowledge to get a job done.
The challenge comes in matching the knowledge products the thinkers
develop to the needs of the people who must perform the activities
critical the success of the organization. This is where we can help. As
we work with our customers we need to help them realize that each and
every action or decision has, among its inputs, specific knowledge
requirements, not just information, but knowledge. When this is
appreciated, the organization is in a better position to start examining
and identifying the sources of the knowledge critical to its operation.
Once an organization has identified knowledge as an asset in the same way
as other inputs to the process, it can start to better match their
"knowledge producers" with the needed "knowledge products." I believe
that when this happens, we will find that the activities of the "thinkers"
are seen less as overhead, and more as value added elements of the
business process.
IMHO this will also lead to a better appreciation that ALL members of the
organization are "thinkers" and developers of knowledge. For an
organization that understands that, among other things, the entire concept
of a Learning Organization should become far more relevant.
Who knows, it might also help organizations better define their needs for
"knowledge out-sourcing" i.e., hiring consultants.
-- Brian (Bo) Newman bonewman@cbvcp.comHost of the Knowledge Management Forum <http://www.iea.com/~bonewman/