Posted by Prac on May 26, 2004 at 09:19:05:

In Reply to: Re: Reviving KM to the Power n posted by Shahnawaz Khan on May 25, 2004 at 13:48:48:

Hi Shahnawaz

The ability of KM to be grouped, as well as individualised, has been one of its greatest assets since it came around in the 90's. There is no argument on that score. KM does not generally seem to support the notion of 'one-size'fits-all', however, from an engineering perspective a group solution may be designed and implemented, as was the case with the restructuring of Cambodia by the Pol Pot government, and managing American sentiment towards goverment excursions since the 1950s.

Furthermore, thank you for your support on KM being a possible, economic-growth factor.

The question I posed pertains directly to KM being viewed as a direct factor of economic growth, in terms of being a technology change, which increases the percentage yield on labour and capital at a lower rate than the percentage increase in the output yield. Economies, and thus diseconomies of scale of knowledge (technology) is proposed.

It could be determined, via a taxonomy, what the inflation rate for a particular portion of knowledge stock(education and training) is. The quantification of the experience portion of knowledge stock could be performed on the hand of knowledge requirements within a job, a team, a situation, an organisation.

A few years ago I proposed the notion that each employee's brain be regarded as a discreet technology. The notion did not enjoy much support. Now, the notion seems more 'logical' when one considers knowledge stock as a technology, in context of economic-growth requirements.

Your views please?

Rob

---

Follow Ups:

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Name: 

  E-Mail: 

 Subject: 

Message: