Posted by Yogesh Malhotra on July 27, 1997 at 14:03:20:

In Reply to: 'Knowledge' - Please tell me its cost and selling price posted by Umesh on July 25, 1997 at 12:49:24:

Interesting and thought-provoking query! The current conception of KM seems not to lend itself to a clean 'vanilla' evaluation, given that KM, and the associated concept of knowledge, [yet] means different things to different peoples.

For instance, to some companies (e.g. pharmaceutical companies in India), the concept still denotes organizational intellectual assets such as patents, trademarks, etc. Perhaps, such relatively tangible items may be easy to evaluate based on financial criteria, such as costs and selling price. One may also note in passing that there are several major US corporations that spend millions of dollars annually just to safeguard their investments in intellectual property such as trademarks, patents, and copyrights.

[More on such issues is available at:
http://www.brint.com/IntellP.htm ]

Swedes, though ahead of the curve on the evaluation of organizational knowledge assets in terms of financial balance sheets, have been criticized for adopting a narrow perspective of knowledge management. At best, one may describe the current state as a state of flux that doesn't suggest any clear cut 'standard' financial or non-financial criteria for measuring organizational knowledge. The suggestion is not that there are no solutions... there are several solutions... most of them dependent upon the varying assumptions of the propagators or creators of such solutions.

Your point about developing a map to locate the specific industry/or ganization knowledge needs on that map is an understandable consideration from a practitioner perspective. Most practitioners would want this map to analyze their future knowledge needs and act accordingly. However, such a map is difficult to create... and if one is created, its lasting utility over time seems questionable.

You have noted that the knowledge assets may not be correlated with the number of PCs or the number of MBAs.

[This seems plausible given the current argument about the absence of correlations between organizations' investments in information technology and their organizational performance, as argued in recent trade press articles by authors including John Seely Brown and Paul Strassmann. These articles are accessible at:

http://www.brint.com/EmergOrg.htm
and
http://www.brint.com/ISResearch.htm ]

Even when companies have access to same data / information, [as argued in a 1995 CIO special issue on KM], the challenge is to "not simply to locate critical data -- although that's important too -- but to apply it better and faster than the next guy." This challenge becomes even greater given the dynamically discontinuous environments. Information that may be viewed in one context [or a point on the timeline] as 'junk', may become 'knowledge' in a different context [or on a different point on the timeline]. Essentially, this happens when the bits and bytes or pixels on the screen suddenly, or gradually, make sense within a certain decision context and provide the potential for action. This is the process of translation of information into knowledge.

Discontinuously changing environments defy prediction and offer the greatest opportunities, while posing greatest threats to even the most carefully laid out plans based on historical data. What survives within such environments is the continuous capability for creativity and innovation. Hence, it may be argued that although the market of 'knowledge,' to some extent resembles the stock market, however, one would be able to relate the organizational survival and competence, along with the development of innovative products, services and processes with the organizational knowledge capital.

[More on discontinuous change is available at:

http://www.kmnetwork.com/kmabst.htm ]

---

Follow Ups:

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: