VIDEO - INTERVIEW

::: CAFE WORLD ACTIVITY :::

Scavenger Hunt

Set 3 - Answers:

1.) Tun Daim Zainuddin, Menteri Kewangan.

2.) 4 organisasi di Malaysia melaksanakan KM:

a. MOSTI - https://krste.mastic.gov.my/
b. INTAN - km4latihanict.blogspot.com
c. JAKIM - http://www.islamgrid.gov.my/
d. HCM Engineering Sdn Bhd - http://km.hcme.com.my/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

3.) Amrit b. Tiwana, Nonaka

4.) Amrit Tiwana, : Tukul, Pemutar Skru,

5.) SourceForge.net is the world's largest open source software development web site. We provide free services that help people build cool stuff and share it with a global audience. See a list of our software development features. more than 2 million registered users.

6.)  4 Pusat,

7.) Arsenal(theGunner's) vs Barcelona F.C

8.) Michael Schumacher di samping pelumba berbakat besar, Nico Rosberg.

9.) Bekas Pengerusi AirAsia, Datuk Pahamin Ab. Rajab dan Ketua Pegawai Operasinya, Bo Lingam.

10.) Women : Datuk Nicol David
Men's : Ramy Ashour

11.) Vorsprung durch Technik - AUDI
Advancement through technology or 'head start through technology'

12.) Pehoni  "iPhone"

13.) 7,15,15,7,12,5 ? – GOOGLE

14.) 15 Huruf

15.) 2

16.) majlis Perdana Perkhidmatan Awam

17.)

18.) e-Pembelajaran Sektor Awam

19.) 6

20.)

21.) National ICT Conference 2010 (NICT)

Tsoukas (1996)

These perspectives all propose that organisations have different types of knowledge and that identifying and examining these will lead to more effective means of generating, sharing and managing knowledge in organisations.

However, Tsouskas (1996) characterised such perspectives as ‘taxonomic’ and argues that typologies of knowledge are marked by ‘formistic’ type of thinking as typologies are based on the assumption that observerable systematic similarities and differences exist between objects of study. He further explains that as tacit and explicit knowledge are mutually constituted – they should not be viewed as separate types of knowledge. Tacit knowledge is a necessary component of all knowledge; it is not made up of discrete means which may be grounded, lost or reconstituted – tacit and explicit knowledge are inseparably related.

According to Tsoukas (2001:976) organisational knowledge is the capability that members of an organisation have developed to draw distinctions in the process of carrying out their work, in particular in concrete contexts, by enacting sets of generalisations whose applications depends on historically evolved collective understandings.

Schank and Abelson (1977)

Scripts were developed in the early AI work by Roger Schank, Robert P. Abelson and their research group, and are a method of representing procedural knowledge. They are very much like frames, except the values that fill the slots must be ordered.

The classic example of a script involves the typical sequence of events that occur when a person dines in a restaurant: finding a seat, reading the menu, ordering drinks from the waitstaff... In the script form, these would be decomposed into conceptual transitions, such as MTRANS and PTRANS, which refer to mental transitions [of information] and physical transitions [of things].

Schank, Abelson and their colleagues tackled some of the most difficult problems in artificial intelligence (i.e., story understanding), but ultimately their line of work ended without tangible success. This type of work received little attention after the 1980s, but it is very influential in later knowledge representation techniques, such as case-based reasoning.

Scripts can be inflexible. To deal with inflexibility, smaller modules called memory organization packets (MOP) can be combined in a way that is appropriate for the situation.

References

• Schank and Abelson Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, Erlbaum, 1977.

Polanyi - Books

1) Polanyi M. (1958): Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press, 428 pp.

2) Polanyi M. (1966): The Tacit Dimension. Doubleday & Co.

As Polanyi observed in The Tacit Dimension, ‘we can know more than we can tell’, (Polanyi, 1983: 4).

It is significant that, for Polanyi, the processes through which tacit knowledge is composed and utilized do not necessarily ever become available as explicit knowledge.  Rather, such accumulations of subsidiary sensation and experience give rise to the play of hunches, guesses, intuitive leaps, and gut responses which he referred to as ‘passions’.   Tacit knowledge is not sterile and distant, but is rather threaded throughout with emotion and responses close to the heart of the person.  It is this understanding which underpins and gives the name to Polanyi’s best known work, ‘Personal Knowledge’ (Polanyi, 1958).

Ikujiro Nonaka & Hirotaka Takeuk - The Knowledge Spiral

Nonaka and Takeuk's highly influential book, The Knowledge Creating Company (1995) is released. Their "spiral process" theory of knowledge creation is based upon a spiral movement between explicit and tacit knowledge.

The Knowledge Spiral

Nonaka and Takeuk theorized that the creation of knowledge is the result of a continuous cycle of four integrated processes: externalization, internalization, combination, and socialization. These four knowledge conversion mechanisms are mutually complementary and interdependent that change according to the demands of context and sequence:

• Externalization - from Tacit to Explicit : Articulate "conceptual" tacit knowledge explicitly through the use of of such techniques as metaphors and models.
• Combination - from Explicit to Explicit: Manipulating explicit "systemic" knowledge through such techniques as sorting and combining. For this to occur, the knowledge elements must "fit together."
• Internalization - from Explicit to Tacit: This is "learning by doing" (operational knowledge) and sharing mental models and technical know-how.
• Socialization - from Tacit to Tacit: Sharing experiences with others (sympathized knowledge). Example: It is quite resistant to codification.

Assignment - KM Tools

KM Tools- Document Publishing and Instant Messaging Tools

 

 

Critical Success Factors of Knowledge Management

Released September 2002 By Farida Hasanali

Using the lessons learned from early adopters, many organizations have effectively provided their employees with the tools they need for managing and sharing knowledge. Yet, it is easy to forget to account for certain critical elements that enable knowledge sharing. Leadership plays a key role in ensuring success in almost any initiative within an organization. Its impact on KM is even more pronounced because this is a relatively new discipline. Nothing makes greater impact on an organization than when leaders model the behavior they are trying to promote among employees. The CEO at Buckman Laboratories, a chemicals company, champions the cause for KM within the organization and personally reviews submissions to its knowledge bank. When he notices that a particular employee has not had been active within the system, he sends a message that reads: "Dear associate, you haven't been sharing knowledge. How can we help you? All the best, Bob."

Culture is the combination of shared history, expectations, unwritten rules, and social customs that compel behaviors. It is the set of underlying beliefs that, while rarely exactly articulated, are always there to influence the perception of actions and communications of all employees. Lack of time - The goal is not to encourage the employees to work more, but to work more effectively. The processes, technologies, and roles designed during a KM initiative must save employees' time, not burden them with more work. This can only be accomplished if the employees' work patterns are accounted for during the initial design and planning phase of the initiative. Unconnected reward systems - Organizations have to maintain a balance between intrinsic and explicit rewards in order to encourage employee behavior. The most effective use of explicit rewards has been to encourage sharing at the onset of a KM initiative. If the attendees don't find value in either the meetings or the information on the system, providing incentives will not sustain their participation. People share because they want to, they like to see their expertise being used, and they like being respected by their peers. Lack of common perspectives - Sharing must be inspired by a common vision. The people affected by the new process or technology must all buy in to this vision and believe it will work. No formal communication - When designing and implementing KM initiatives, ensure that employees and customers know about the changes occurring in your organization. It has been hypothesized that a person needs to hear the same message at least three times before it registers in the brain. Hence, communication should be pervasive and ingeminating. While implementing KM within your organization, market yourself. Make sure everyone knows what you are attempting to do, and build anticipation for the launch.

Culture

If your organization naturally has a tendency to share knowledge, enabling knowledge sharing becomes a little easier. If your organization harbors a knowledge-hoarding culture, don't give in to it. Remove negative consequences to sharing. People want to share their knowledge. They want others to know they are knowledgeable. Break down some of the existing barriers to knowledge sharing, and give people the tools and environment they need. By designing KM initiatives around your culture, you will be initiating a cultural change.

Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities

Approach - The people who are charged with implementing KM must take the time to understand their users' needs. Matching the KM system with the KM objectives is essential. Content - With a similar focus on users' needs, establishing great content involves having processes in place to acquire, manage, validate, and deliver relevant information, when and where it is needed. Common platforms - A standard companywide architecture ensures the sustainability and scalability of KM efforts. By understanding the organization's infrastructure at a high level, the steering committee can guide the KM team in picking the appropriate technology. Sometimes organizations realize that they need a complete overhaul of their IT infrastructure before they can expect their employees to share knowledge. Many organizations have eliminated or are in the process of phasing out customized legacy systems and replacing them with market-standard operating systems. This enables organizations to build on the existing architecture by using off-the-shelf software that was written to support these platforms, thus avoiding costly customized packages. Simple technology - If it takes more than three clicks to find knowledge on your system, users will get frustrated. Of course, you have to temper that with the amount of information being delivered and the complexity of information demanded by the user. Another common mistake made in information delivery is the emphasis on explicit knowledge. Although technology is primarily used to deliver explicit knowledge, placing too much emphasis on it causes the user to lose the context in which the information was shared and leads to misunderstanding on how to interpret the knowledge. Adequate training - KM is enabled by adequate technology and people who know how to use it. Best-practice examples reveal that the central KM group should spend most of its time (after deployment) teaching, guiding, and coaching users how to use the system to interact, communicate, and share information and knowledge with one another.  

Leadership

Several other best-practice organizations have demonstrated this commitment to KM. At the World Bank, the president's support led to the creation of an infrastructure that promoted and supported the growth of communities of practice (CoPs) not only throughout the organization, but also around the globe.

An elementary success factor of knowledge management (KM) is to have a common understanding of the terms "knowledge management" and "knowledge sharing" and how they apply to your situation and needs. Some organizations choose not to use these terms at all because they are not accepted within the culture. By recognizing this fact, an organization is actually adhering to a critical success factor of KM: listen to your employees and customers.

The definition of KM has evolved quite a bit since the mid 1990s. It started simply as valuable information in action, in which value is determined by the organization and the recipient. Although this definition still holds true today, KM has evolved into a more rigorous discipline that is subject to the same scrutiny as other business processes within an organization and is expected to show a return on investment (ROI).

APQC defines KM as an emerging set of strategies and approaches to create, safeguard, and use knowledge assets (including people and information), which allows knowledge to flow to the right people at the right time so they can apply these assets to create more value for the enterprise.

Some inherent critical success factors are built into the definition. KM is a set of strategies and approaches, which denotes a definite structure or a way to do things. Another critical piece of this definition is that this approach enables the flow of information to the right person at the right time; otherwise, an organization would be managing its knowledge just for the sake of managing it and not to create value. That brings us to the most critical aspect of this definition: creating more value for the enterprise. The most elaborate knowledge-sharing procedures will not help if the knowledge shared within an organization does not enable its recipient(s) to create value, be it through increased revenue or time or cost savings.

The success of a KM initiative depends on many factors, some within our control, some not. Typically, critical success factors can be categorized into five primary categories:

1. leadership;

2. culture;

3. structure, roles, and responsibilities;

4. information technology infrastructure; and

5. measurement.

Its knowledge managers constantly search for new approaches to knowledge sharing.

Although leadership plays a critical role in the success of the KM initiative, the "culture" factor can be even more important to the success of KM.

Without a solid IT infrastructure, an organization cannot enable its employees to share information on a large scale. Yet the trap that most organizations fall into is not a lack of IT, but rather too much focus on IT. A KM initiative is not a software application; having a platform to share information and to communicate is only part of a KM initiative.

Measurement

Most people fear measurement because they see it as synonymous with ROI, and they are not sure how to link KM efforts to ROI. Although the ultimate goal of measuring the effectiveness of a KM initiative is to determine some type of ROI, there are many intervening variables that also affect the outcomes.

Because many variables may affect an outcome, it is important to correlate KM activities with business outcomes, while not claiming a pure cause-and-effect relationship. Increased sales may be a result not only of the sales representatives having more information, but also of the market turning, a competitor closing down, or prices dropping 10 percent. Due to the inability to completely isolate knowledge-sharing results, tracking the correlations over time is important.

There is a final imperative concerning critical success factors, which transcends KM and applies to all interactions: Listen! Listen to your users, customers, and managers-whichever audience for which you are designing. They will tell you how you can meet their needs and have a successful KM initiative.

Although there are many ways that organizations structure the governance of their KM initiatives, APQC has found common elements among best-practice partner organizations: a steering committee, a central KM support group, and stewards/owners throughout the organization who are responsible for KM. It is a combination of a centralized and decentralized approach.

The steering committee usually consists of executives at the top level. They promote the concept and provide guidance, direction, and support. The central KM group is typically made up of three to four people who provide the initial support for projects or initiatives, which are usually handed over to the business owners once they are implemented. The central group usually consists of people with advanced project management, facilitation, and communication skills. The stewards, or owners, are responsible for knowledge sharing and acquisition within the business units. Like the core KM group, the stewards are change agents for the organization. They model and teach employees the principles of knowledge sharing using a common vocabulary. All of these participants work as a team to prevent a silo mentality and incorporate resistant employees in the process.

Although the structure is put in place to establish ownership and accountability, if there is no overall ownership of knowledge and learning within the organization and the leadership does not "walk the talk," it will be difficult to sustain any sharing behavior.

Examples of communities of practice

The communities Lave and Wenger studied were naturally forming as practitioners of craft and skill-based activities met to share experiences and insights (Lave & Wenger 1991). Lave and Wenger observed situated learning within a community of practice among Yucatán midwives, native tailors, navy quartermasters and meat cutters (Lave & Wenger 1991) as well as insurance claims processors. (Wenger 1998). Other fields have made use of the concept of CoPs. Examples include education (Grossman 2001), sociolinguistics, material anthropology, and second language acquisition (Kimble, Hildreth & Bourdon 2008).

A famous example of a community of practice within an organization is that which developed around the Xerox customer service representatives who repaired the machines in the field (Brown & Duguid 2000). The Xerox reps began exchanging tips and tricks over informal meetings over breakfast or lunch and eventually Xerox saw the value of these interactions and created the Eureka project to allow these interactions to be shared across the global network of representatives. The Eureka database has been estimated to have saved the corporation 100$ million.

Communities of practice compared to functional or project teams

• A project team differs from a community of practice in several significant ways (McDermott, 1999).
• A project team is driven by deliverables with shared goals, milestones and results.
• A project team meets to share and exchange information and experiences just as the community of practice does, but team membership is defined by task.
• A project team typically has designated members who remain consistent in their roles during the project.
• A project team is dissolved once its mission is accomplished.

By contrast,

• A community of practice is often organically created, with as many objectives as members of that community.
• Community membership is defined by the knowledge of the members. CoP membership changes and members may take on new roles within the community as interests and needs arise.
• A community of practice can exist as long as the members believe they have something to contribute to it, or gain from it.

Communities of Practice versus Communities of Interest

In addition to the distinction between CoP and other types of organizational groupings found in the workplace, in some cases it is useful to differentiate CoP from Communities of Interest (CoI).

Community of Interest

• A group of people interested in sharing information and discussing a particular topic that interests them.
• Members are not necessarily experts or practitioners of the topic around which the CoI has formed.
• The purpose of the CoI is to provide a place where people who share a common interest can go and exchange information, ask questions, and express their opinions about the topic.
• Membership in a CoI is not dependent upon expertise - one only needs to be interested in the subject.

Community of Practice

• A CoP, in contrast, is a group of people who are active practitioners.
• CoP participation is not appropriate for non-practitioners.
• The purpose of a CoP, as discussed above, is to provide a way for practitioners to share tips and best practices, ask questions of their colleagues, and provide support for each other.
• Membership is dependent on expertise - one should have at least some recent experience performing in the role or subject area of the CoP.
• Example: Someone who is interested in photography and has some background/training in it finds an online CoP for working photojournalists, who use it to discuss various aspects of their work. Since this community is focused on working photojournalists, it would not be appropriate for an amateur photographer to contribute to the CoP discussions there. Depending on the CoPs structure non-CoP members may have access to reading the discussions and accessing other materials of the community.

Communities of practice and knowledge management

Wasko and Faraj (2000) describe three kinds of knowledge: "knowledge as object", "knowledge embedded within individuals", and "knowledge embedded in a community". Communities of Practice have become associated with finding, sharing, transferring, and archiving knowledge, as well as making explicit "expertise", or tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is considered to be those valuable context-based experiences that can not easily be captured, codified and stored (Davenport & Prusak 2000), also (Hildreth & Kimble 2002).

Because knowledge management is seen "primarily as a problem of capturing, organizing, and retrieving information, evoking notions of databases, documents, query languages, and data mining" (Thomas, Kellogg & Erickson 2001), the community of practice, collectively and individually, is considered a rich potential source of helpful information in the form of actual experiences; in other words, best practices.

Thus, for knowledge management, a community of practice is one source of content and context that if codified, documented and archived can be accessed for later use.

DEFINITION - HUMAN, CUSTOMER AND STRUCTURAL CAPITAL

human capital

  

Definition

Human capital is the attributes of a person that are productive in some economic context. Often refers to formal educational attainment, with the implication that education is investment whose returns are in the form of wage, salary, or other compensation. These are normally measured and conceived of as private returns to the individual but can also be social returns.

customer capital

  

Definition

Value of relationships that a firm builds with its customers, and which is reflected in their loyalty to the firm and/or its products. It is one of the three kinds of intellectual capital of a firm (the other two are human capital and structural capital) that are not reflected in a balance sheet.

structural capital

Definition

Competitive intelligence, formulas, information systems, patents, policies, processes, etc., that result from the products or systems the firm has created over time. One of the three types of intellectual capital (the other two are 'customer capital' and 'human capital'), it does not reside in the heads of the employees and remains with the organization even when they leave.

The Knowledge Asset: The Coin of Human Capital

Knowledge As A Corporate Asset

Jerome J. Peloquin

Virtually every business in the world faces the same fundamental problem: Maintenance of their competitive edge through the application and formation of knowledge. The plain unvarnished truth is that, in many companies, much of the operating knowledge is undocumented; this tacit (undocumented) Knowledge can easily be lost through retirement or attrition. In the technology field, it's much worse. Knowledge workers with key competitive and often proprietary knowledge are literally stolen away by competitors. And, without the ability to organize, store, retrieve and manage it, much hard-won knowledge leaves with them. Some companies are using stock options to hold key employees. That's a good idea, but what about those who hold tacit knowledge but are essentially invisible to the system? In many companies, much of the organizational "know-how" exists in the minds and private notebooks of workers, programmers and managers. Management of corporate knowledge assets should be as common place as the management of information is today. Meanwhile, valuable knowledge assets are irretrievably lost, running like quicksilver through the personnel office.

An example of this hidden, or tacit knowledge may prove instructive. While working at a large expatriate automotive company recently, I was assigned a project in the production department of their motorcycle pla nt. Management was preparing to fire a fifty-something female production control supervisor named Carrie because of constant tardiness. She was an unattractive, poorly educated, high-school drop out with bad grammar and a strong Ohio twang – no stock options for Carrie.

Although my discussions had nothing to do with her problem, I determined, after several interviews, that she was the only one in the facility who really understood the plant's computerized production control system. The production control system was a rather complex and idiosyncratic program which had originated in Japan, and had few knowledgeable advocates in this plant. It ran well and did the job only because Carrie knew it backwards and forwards. In fact, she taught the program’s functions to new production managers. Firing her would have created a manufacturing nightmare, with bottlenecks, lost orders, and an emergency call to Japan for several engineers. No one knew Carrie was the only repository of this knowledge. Plant production managers assumed that she was only one of many production control people who had this knowledge. They were wrong.

"Knowledge is the coin of Human Capital"

This paper has two goals. They are: (1) To postulate that the value of knowledge as a component of human performance is, in fact, a tangible corporate asset; and (2) To begin a dialog with the both the financial and business communities regarding the inclusion of the "knowledge asset" as the value-bearing part of Human Capital. Today, knowledge is considered a key strategic asset for many corporations. It is our competitive edge and gives us the advantage in almost any business situation. Yet, it is one of the least understood of all corporate attributes Knowledge, its representation within the corporation, its value and management, is the focus of this paper.

As we all know, human capital still has no formal place on the balance sheet. Consequently, Knowledge, lacking formal recognition by the accounting system, often receives less attention than it deserves I fully realize that the path to establishing the institutional value of knowledge and its corollary, human capital, is well worn. And, as the economist Robert Reich said in a recent e-mail, "The burden of proof is on you." It is my belief, Dr. Reich, that the time is ripe for a new sojourn into this dismal realm, in part because of this time of unprecedented intellectual expansion when ideas, like new application software, create capital from the mind rather than from the mine. Perhaps it is time to re-asses the rules of the game. Unlike capital formation, knowledge formation is totally egalitarian and springs from all sectors of our commercial society.

What is corporate knowledge? How is it applied and how is it valued? For years managers have said “if you can't measure it, you can't manage it.” Can we, then, measure knowledge? And, if not, how can we possibly manage it? Some people are said to be "knowledgeable," and others are not. Who knows? And, how do we decide? In fact, in industry, we have no objective means to measure knowledge. We do not identify knowledge except in highly subjective terms. Much of what we call knowledge is really information.

Usually we treat knowledge as if it were some benevolent genie whom, if we cajole, feed, and sometimes bribe, will make us the beneficiary of its largess. The simple fact is that the qualitative and quantitative management of knowledge is essential if we are to survive in the global marketplace. Knowledge is our competitive edge. Knowledge is the one factor which delivers value to the corporation, but is not officially recognized on the balance sheet. Currently, one cannot formally impute worth to knowledge in financial terms, other than as some vague and unspecified contribution to profit. However, since Knowledge is truly the coin of Human and

Intellectual Capital, it is fundamental that we are able to both identify and quantify it. The much referenced, ill-defined Knowledge Asset has no clear objective definition, except to imply that it contributes in some way to the value of the company. In truth, knowledge is the asset bearing component of Human Capital. Knowledge and the “Knowledge Asset” are essential to the demonstration of the value of people in our business model. Our inability to value people is one reason for the almost universal undervaluing of Human Resources, demonstrated, for example, by the consistent under funding of corporate training.

Any discussion of knowledge in business should first differentiate between information and knowledge. Although the dictionary would have us believe otherwise, knowledge and information are not synonymous. Dr. W. Edwards Demming said knowledge is information in action. It is our belief that Knowledge is a distinctly human attribute. The following is an operational definition used for the special purposes of this essay (see attachment # 1). First, information. Information exists external to the human mind. Information does not become knowledge until intelligence, integration, judgement, synthesis and a host of other human attributes are applied to it. Information is then transformed into knowledge by the human mind.

Information is useless unless we can act upon it, and that implies that it must first be transformed into knowledge. Once integrated into the existing knowledge framework of the individual, information becomes actionable knowledge. In most cases, information cannot readily be transformed on-the- fly. It cannot simply be passed like a spreadsheet, from one person to another. An example here may prove illustrative. If the spreadsheet is merely next months operating budget, then a few simple questions should permit me to derive knowledge from it. However, if we have a complex product forecast employing regression analysis and pivot tables, a bit more explanation and indeed some training may be required before I can transform the information in this spreadsheet into knowledge. The individual, especially when dealing with complex processes, must transform information by integrating it into their existing knowledge base. This transformation process, then, is the called education and/or training.

The knowledge asset combines a number of factors which can be objectively proven by

the observation and accomplishment of a specific set of criteria. Accomplishment is represented by the realization of a discrete set of behaviors, called tasks, which, when employed by an individual, or group, results in a measurable outcome that adds value to the corporation.

The Criteria for Proof of a Knowledge Asset

There are four conditions that I believe are required to verify the existence of a knowledge

asset. These conditions, or criteria, are:

· worker to perform the task, or tasks, independently and without further assistance.

Creation of a set of graphical procedure guides which will permit a nominally trained

· Observation of correct job performance, which is proof of accomplishment.

· measure.

Quantification of the value of the accomplishment, as represented by an economic

· Verification by an independent, certified assessor.

Note: This differs from ISO-9000 in that our written procedures must be employed and observed

to be valid, not just documented. Secondly, the accomplishment of the tasks must have

measurable, documented economic value. These conditions must be achieved and

objectively monitored by an trained, independent auditor before a knowledge asset can

be declared. And, to clarify the status of the auditor, that individual must be independent

of the group performing the activities to be assessed, not necessarily independent of the

company in which the activities occur.

In our current financ ial measurement and valuation model, an asset is typically a tangible

object which, through appreciation or depreciation, accrues value to the corporation. A Patent,

or Copyright, is an example of an intangible asset that is considered intellectual capital. We

believe that this does not go far enough in documenting the knowledge assets of the corporation.

The Patent also provides us with an objective precedent for the use of knowledge as a tangible

asset. We propose to add the “Knowledge Asset” as another representation of value and

objective proof of Human Capital. We intend to make this argument (here and in other venues)

to Government and Business institutions that are tasked with such assessments. The Knowledge

Asset is the tangible representation of the corporations "know-how," and is

corporate competence. It represents the competence of the corporation. The sum total of these

knowledge assets are the Human and Intellectual Capital of the company. One of the major

prima facie proof of

Copyright 2001, all rights reserved, Jerome J. Peloquin 7

reasons for the failure of newly acquired businesses is that the purchaser does not recognize that

its intellectual capital is at risk, since it resides in a limited number of employees. Whether

disaffected as a result of the buy-out, new management, a move, or some other reason, the loss of

these key knowledge assets (both the individuals and the knowledge they represent) could render

the corporation incapable of performing.

It is fundamentally true that the ability to operate effectively is not sufficiently

demonstrated by Patents or Copyrights. Ownership of a patent is not objective proof that the

company can effectively, or efficiently, produce the product, just as owning the copyright to a

symphony does not assure that musicians can play it. In part, the knowledge asset is to the patent

what the musical score is when translated into specific music by the musicians. To extend the

metaphor, it is a combination of the score and the competent performance of the music.

Finally, there must be economic value. It is fundamental that the proof of the knowledge

asset lies neither in the ownership of the patent or the value of the accomplishment of

production. The proof is not merely in the pudding, but in the combined elements of human

knowledge assets, and their contribution to the value of the product, or service, delivered to the

customer. This is a knowledge asset; this is the value of Human Capital.

Unless we can include the knowledge asset and human capital on the balance sheet to

offset investment (as we do with other corporate assets), our ability to justify investment in

building or retooling our knowledge infrastructure and Human Capital will always be

problematic. Unless formally recognized by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB),

and reflected in the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the financial and

accounting systems will continue to work against such mission critical investment s.

I submit the situation, as described in this essay, is both intolerable and incorrect, and

must be rectified. It is a deficiency in how we report on, manage, and value businesses under our

form of capitalism. One is hopeful, however, that the opinions expressed in this paper may

provide the basis for a new dialog on the matter.

Copyright 2001, all rights reserved, Jerome J. Peloquin 8

I would entertain participating in a "call for papers" issued by one or more parties with

legitimate interest in the area. I would consider a symposium to be held next year, at a time and

place convenient to all, as a successful outcome of this essay. If you have found interest here,

and would like more information regarding the organization and management of Knowledge and

Knowledge Assets, a White Paper, titled: “Knowledge Management: The structure and

application of Knowledge as a strategic corporate asset,” authored by Mr. Peloquin and Mr.

Meraviglia, will soon be available on the following websites: www.performanceparadigm.com

and www.bwise.org.

Peloquin-Meraviglia Knowledge Management Model

<

NOTE:

Information, and Knowledge all have value in that they contribute to improved Performance and corporate PROFIT! As context

is added, data becomes Information. As intelligence, integration and synthesis occur, Information is transformed into Knowledge.

When applied by a motivated worker, performance and improved productivity result.

This model shows the logical progression of content types and their relationship to improved organisational performance. Data,

Operational Definitions

Data

: Unrelated bits of corporate business content

Information

: Data to which context has been added.

Knowledge

: Information is transformed into knowledge through the application of intelligence, integration, and synthesis.

Performance

: Knowledge applied to a measurable accomplishment that adds value to the corporation.

Knowledge is a uniquely human attribute. It exists only in one's mind. Everything external ito the mind s Information.

Copyright 2000, All rights reserved, Jerome J. Peloquin and Bruce J. Meraviglia
Data

Information Knowledge Performance

Motivation

The Performance Continuum

<

Attachment # 1
Instegration

Synthesis

Inteligence

Context

The Performance Paradigm