Posted by TMalik on August 01, 2002 at 19:35:06:

In Reply to: Re: Knowledge Sharing Incentives posted by CFanning on August 01, 2002 at 13:11:29:

Dear CFanning,
Thank you for your valuable comments. Your mentioning of the ‘Ceteris Parabis’ reminded me and certainly incited me to learn more. So I sat down reckoning how to appreciate it.
After a bit consideration, I figured out that despite I agree with you and I am learning from the contribution from the participants of this generous community, I must keep up seeking various opinions and comments.
Let me cut down, from monolithic approach—if I may—to specific cases/ examples. Referring to diminishing marginal utility law (or law of DMU), I would point out to some exemptions: Wealth, fame, knowledge, and so on (some of them we know, some others, we don’t).
When we talk about those exemptions, or the law per se, we understand its direct attributes to people (consumers). It reflects human behavior. That is what economics is all about. Cause and effects don’t work without being played on human. I want to think (and wish too) that careful studies can lead us to some conclusion. From there, someone else picks up and moves step further, and so until we find a common ground. I am certainly no way near to saying that we can understand whole of human mind in a certain context.
Yes, at the end of the day, we would catch up with some common traits that work well. After all, we talk about Tacit Knowledge in context of skills, practices, and know-how; we may end up with some elicitation of Tacit Knowledge or knowing how to do it. This might help us analyzing, selecting and applying some-what-right incentives, or near there, to scrutinize what to pick, what to let go and whom to interact.
I had always been fancied by Intelligence Agencies, which send their ‘brains’ abroad to read others gestures, languages, activities and reactions to certain actions. The decision makers determine what ‘percussion’ for a desired ‘repercussion’. Yes, sometimes they fail, some times they don’t.
It is just an analogy and not an absolute conclusion for a path to make it an incentive for knowledge sharing.
Two days back, I read a piece of news on the net that some US scientists have found dogs cleverer than they are thought to be. Their barking (of course dogs') has fluctuation in pitch and variation in rhythm. After establishing this ‘dog’s woofing’, next step is to find the message—‘the what’.
How about the human beings? Can we observe them? We had dealt with it when agreed upon law of demand and supplies and law of diminishing/increasing returns. Only later, it revealed to us that there were so-called ‘Inferior goods’, or ‘Giffen goods’. Then the economics started working on that new issues.
If we don’t check our hypothesis for comparison between the two (prevalent and effective incentives), how can we determine what works, and what does not do so well. And if found one common, effective, efficient and ‘monolithic’ incentive—even from numerous—is perhaps better than not having any?
I feel great to ask you for further learning. Privilge of asking motivates me to share.
Regards
Tmalik.
PS. Please overlook my lengthy phrases and irrelevant material.

---

Follow Ups:

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: