- Teks
- Sejarah
KnowledgeIt should come as no surpr
Knowledge
It should come as no surprise that a lot of the discussion about knowledge capitalism addresses the issue of different types of knowledge and ways of knowing. Pause
for a moment and try to reflect on the different types of knowledge involved in buying
and playing a new Wii game. For a start we need to know where to buy the game,
how to load the game and the rules of the game. We need to know how to operate
the control unit (which may by now be so deeply embedded that it is second nature).
We may also know specific friends that are experts in that particular game that we
can contact for advice, and so we could go on. The point is that it’s actually surprising
how many different types of knowledge we use everyday without being fully aware of
the value of this knowledge to us. The same is true when we are working and more
generally within the economic sphere. In their promotion of the knowledge economy,
the World Bank (1999) suggests that two different kinds of knowledge are important
for developing countries: knowledge about technology, or know-how, and knowledge about attributes (in other words how you know when something is good quality).
Michael Peters (2001) makes the distinction between ‘know-what’ or propositional
knowledge, ‘know-how’ and ‘know-who’.1 The last two types are more tacit in nature.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) similarly distinguish between practical, experiencebased, know-how and theoretical, know-what or know-that knowledge. In 1998, the
UK Department for Trade and Industry published a white paper entitled, Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy, in which they differentiated
between codified and tacit knowledge. Whereas codified knowledge can be converted into electronic formats quite easily and is therefore quite portable, tacit knowledge is more difficult to isolate and translate into a form easily accessible to others.
Much of the discussion, then, relates to the distinction between tacit and explicit
knowledge but the problem with tacit knowledge is that it is characteristically
incommunicable and difficult to manage.
Knowledge and the nature of knowledge are therefore key themes in the intellectual capital discourse. Yet the question is whether and how organizations are
attempting to recognize, create, organize and sustain any categories of intellectual
capital that could be construed as ethical knowledge. If ethical knowledge should be
regarded as an important category of intellectual capital, how might we conceptualize this category of asset. Is it something that resides within individual employees like
moral sentiment (Sen 1995) or emotional intelligence (McPhail 2004) or is it a characteristic of particular kinds of practice or networks (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998;
Krackhardt and Hanson 2000)? If your employees have the ability to utilize some of
the theoretical perspective that we discussed in Part I, for example, if they can put
themselves behind Rawl’s veil of ignorance, or if they can argue the categorical
imperative, is this an organizational asset?
Managing and measuring knowledge
After the different categories of intellectual capital have been identified, the next
stage is to get knowledge into a form in which it can be packaged, presented and
transported electronically, in other words to make it useable and manageable. Jan
Mouritsen and his co-authors (2001) suggest that this process involves taking knowledge that is implicit and making it amenable to codification, storage, transportation
and sharing. It involves the conversion of tacit knowledge into an explicit form. Some
of the management literature even proposes the use of social network analysis techniques in order to map informal networks of employee relationships (Krackhardt and
Hanson 1993). These relationships are often mapped in relation to themes like
‘advice networks’ and ‘trust networks’.
Finally, let’s consider how we could go about measuring these new assets.
Brennan and Connell (2000) provide some examples of measures that have been
used to indicate levels of human capital in particular. These include the number of
employees with a university degree as a measure of education; annual training costs
or the number of training days per employee as a measure of education cost; and
questionnaires on job satisfaction to measure motivation. Based on a review of
the literature, they suggest that leadership skills, employee satisfaction, employee motivation and the number of years of experience are perceived to be the most
useful indicators in relation to human capital. It is therefore possible to think of
measures that could be used to record human capital. However, we shouldn’t
uncritically accept these measures. Roslender and Fincham (2001), for example,
point out that conflating human capital into these types of measures is a reflection of
both an accounting calculative mentality and a managerialist mindset that reduces
sentient human beings to a set of numbers.
We have now gone through some of the concepts and categories that are common within the discussion of intellectual capital. The issue we would like you to
consider at this point is how it might be possible to develop measures of ethical
capital or individual competence in order to code, store, share and manage something that could be construed as ethical capital? But also think about whether this
process of identifying and managing ethics ultimately removes the challenge that the
whole idea of ethics represents.
The following sections explore the new kinds of ethical challenges associated with
the knowledge economy.
ETHICS AND THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
There are many new ethical challenges associated with the knowledge economy.
Some of these issues are quite specific and relate to things like the ethics of information collection and protection, for example the types of information that should be
held on databases. However, at a broader level they relate to access to information
and transparency, particularly in relation to knowledge about institutions and what
they do. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (2002), for example, comments on ‘the necessity for increased transparency, improving the information that
citizens have about what . . . institutions do, allowing those who are affected by the
policies to have a greater say in their formation’.
It should come as no surprise that a lot of the discussion about knowledge capitalism addresses the issue of different types of knowledge and ways of knowing. Pause
for a moment and try to reflect on the different types of knowledge involved in buying
and playing a new Wii game. For a start we need to know where to buy the game,
how to load the game and the rules of the game. We need to know how to operate
the control unit (which may by now be so deeply embedded that it is second nature).
We may also know specific friends that are experts in that particular game that we
can contact for advice, and so we could go on. The point is that it’s actually surprising
how many different types of knowledge we use everyday without being fully aware of
the value of this knowledge to us. The same is true when we are working and more
generally within the economic sphere. In their promotion of the knowledge economy,
the World Bank (1999) suggests that two different kinds of knowledge are important
for developing countries: knowledge about technology, or know-how, and knowledge about attributes (in other words how you know when something is good quality).
Michael Peters (2001) makes the distinction between ‘know-what’ or propositional
knowledge, ‘know-how’ and ‘know-who’.1 The last two types are more tacit in nature.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) similarly distinguish between practical, experiencebased, know-how and theoretical, know-what or know-that knowledge. In 1998, the
UK Department for Trade and Industry published a white paper entitled, Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy, in which they differentiated
between codified and tacit knowledge. Whereas codified knowledge can be converted into electronic formats quite easily and is therefore quite portable, tacit knowledge is more difficult to isolate and translate into a form easily accessible to others.
Much of the discussion, then, relates to the distinction between tacit and explicit
knowledge but the problem with tacit knowledge is that it is characteristically
incommunicable and difficult to manage.
Knowledge and the nature of knowledge are therefore key themes in the intellectual capital discourse. Yet the question is whether and how organizations are
attempting to recognize, create, organize and sustain any categories of intellectual
capital that could be construed as ethical knowledge. If ethical knowledge should be
regarded as an important category of intellectual capital, how might we conceptualize this category of asset. Is it something that resides within individual employees like
moral sentiment (Sen 1995) or emotional intelligence (McPhail 2004) or is it a characteristic of particular kinds of practice or networks (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998;
Krackhardt and Hanson 2000)? If your employees have the ability to utilize some of
the theoretical perspective that we discussed in Part I, for example, if they can put
themselves behind Rawl’s veil of ignorance, or if they can argue the categorical
imperative, is this an organizational asset?
Managing and measuring knowledge
After the different categories of intellectual capital have been identified, the next
stage is to get knowledge into a form in which it can be packaged, presented and
transported electronically, in other words to make it useable and manageable. Jan
Mouritsen and his co-authors (2001) suggest that this process involves taking knowledge that is implicit and making it amenable to codification, storage, transportation
and sharing. It involves the conversion of tacit knowledge into an explicit form. Some
of the management literature even proposes the use of social network analysis techniques in order to map informal networks of employee relationships (Krackhardt and
Hanson 1993). These relationships are often mapped in relation to themes like
‘advice networks’ and ‘trust networks’.
Finally, let’s consider how we could go about measuring these new assets.
Brennan and Connell (2000) provide some examples of measures that have been
used to indicate levels of human capital in particular. These include the number of
employees with a university degree as a measure of education; annual training costs
or the number of training days per employee as a measure of education cost; and
questionnaires on job satisfaction to measure motivation. Based on a review of
the literature, they suggest that leadership skills, employee satisfaction, employee motivation and the number of years of experience are perceived to be the most
useful indicators in relation to human capital. It is therefore possible to think of
measures that could be used to record human capital. However, we shouldn’t
uncritically accept these measures. Roslender and Fincham (2001), for example,
point out that conflating human capital into these types of measures is a reflection of
both an accounting calculative mentality and a managerialist mindset that reduces
sentient human beings to a set of numbers.
We have now gone through some of the concepts and categories that are common within the discussion of intellectual capital. The issue we would like you to
consider at this point is how it might be possible to develop measures of ethical
capital or individual competence in order to code, store, share and manage something that could be construed as ethical capital? But also think about whether this
process of identifying and managing ethics ultimately removes the challenge that the
whole idea of ethics represents.
The following sections explore the new kinds of ethical challenges associated with
the knowledge economy.
ETHICS AND THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
There are many new ethical challenges associated with the knowledge economy.
Some of these issues are quite specific and relate to things like the ethics of information collection and protection, for example the types of information that should be
held on databases. However, at a broader level they relate to access to information
and transparency, particularly in relation to knowledge about institutions and what
they do. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (2002), for example, comments on ‘the necessity for increased transparency, improving the information that
citizens have about what . . . institutions do, allowing those who are affected by the
policies to have a greater say in their formation’.
0/5000
KnowledgeIt should come as no surprise that a lot of the discussion about knowledge capitalism addresses the issue of different types of knowledge and ways of knowing. Pausefor a moment and try to reflect on the different types of knowledge involved in buyingand playing a new Wii game. For a start we need to know where to buy the game,how to load the game and the rules of the game. We need to know how to operatethe control unit (which may by now be so deeply embedded that it is second nature).We may also know specific friends that are experts in that particular game that wecan contact for advice, and so we could go on. The point is that it’s actually surprisinghow many different types of knowledge we use everyday without being fully aware ofthe value of this knowledge to us. The same is true when we are working and moregenerally within the economic sphere. In their promotion of the knowledge economy,the World Bank (1999) suggests that two different kinds of knowledge are importantfor developing countries: knowledge about technology, or know-how, and knowledge about attributes (in other words how you know when something is good quality).Michael Peters (2001) makes the distinction between ‘know-what’ or propositionalknowledge, ‘know-how’ and ‘know-who’.1 The last two types are more tacit in nature.Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) similarly distinguish between practical, experiencebased, know-how and theoretical, know-what or know-that knowledge. In 1998, theUK Department for Trade and Industry published a white paper entitled, Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge-Driven Economy, in which they differentiatedbetween codified and tacit knowledge. Whereas codified knowledge can be converted into electronic formats quite easily and is therefore quite portable, tacit knowledge is more difficult to isolate and translate into a form easily accessible to others.Much of the discussion, then, relates to the distinction between tacit and explicitknowledge but the problem with tacit knowledge is that it is characteristicallyincommunicable and difficult to manage.Knowledge and the nature of knowledge are therefore key themes in the intellectual capital discourse. Yet the question is whether and how organizations areattempting to recognize, create, organize and sustain any categories of intellectualcapital that could be construed as ethical knowledge. If ethical knowledge should beregarded as an important category of intellectual capital, how might we conceptualize this category of asset. Is it something that resides within individual employees likemoral sentiment (Sen 1995) or emotional intelligence (McPhail 2004) or is it a characteristic of particular kinds of practice or networks (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998;Krackhardt and Hanson 2000)? If your employees have the ability to utilize some ofthe theoretical perspective that we discussed in Part I, for example, if they can putthemselves behind Rawl’s veil of ignorance, or if they can argue the categoricalimperative, is this an organizational asset? Managing and measuring knowledgeAfter the different categories of intellectual capital have been identified, the nextstage is to get knowledge into a form in which it can be packaged, presented andtransported electronically, in other words to make it useable and manageable. JanMouritsen and his co-authors (2001) suggest that this process involves taking knowledge that is implicit and making it amenable to codification, storage, transportationand sharing. It involves the conversion of tacit knowledge into an explicit form. Someof the management literature even proposes the use of social network analysis techniques in order to map informal networks of employee relationships (Krackhardt andHanson 1993). These relationships are often mapped in relation to themes like‘advice networks’ and ‘trust networks’.Finally, let’s consider how we could go about measuring these new assets.Brennan and Connell (2000) provide some examples of measures that have beenused to indicate levels of human capital in particular. These include the number ofemployees with a university degree as a measure of education; annual training costsor the number of training days per employee as a measure of education cost; andquestionnaires on job satisfaction to measure motivation. Based on a review ofthe literature, they suggest that leadership skills, employee satisfaction, employee motivation and the number of years of experience are perceived to be the most
useful indicators in relation to human capital. It is therefore possible to think of
measures that could be used to record human capital. However, we shouldn’t
uncritically accept these measures. Roslender and Fincham (2001), for example,
point out that conflating human capital into these types of measures is a reflection of
both an accounting calculative mentality and a managerialist mindset that reduces
sentient human beings to a set of numbers.
We have now gone through some of the concepts and categories that are common within the discussion of intellectual capital. The issue we would like you to
consider at this point is how it might be possible to develop measures of ethical
capital or individual competence in order to code, store, share and manage something that could be construed as ethical capital? But also think about whether this
process of identifying and managing ethics ultimately removes the challenge that the
whole idea of ethics represents.
The following sections explore the new kinds of ethical challenges associated with
the knowledge economy.
ETHICS AND THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
There are many new ethical challenges associated with the knowledge economy.
Some of these issues are quite specific and relate to things like the ethics of information collection and protection, for example the types of information that should be
held on databases. However, at a broader level they relate to access to information
and transparency, particularly in relation to knowledge about institutions and what
they do. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (2002), for example, comments on ‘the necessity for increased transparency, improving the information that
citizens have about what . . . institutions do, allowing those who are affected by the
policies to have a greater say in their formation’.
useful indicators in relation to human capital. It is therefore possible to think of
measures that could be used to record human capital. However, we shouldn’t
uncritically accept these measures. Roslender and Fincham (2001), for example,
point out that conflating human capital into these types of measures is a reflection of
both an accounting calculative mentality and a managerialist mindset that reduces
sentient human beings to a set of numbers.
We have now gone through some of the concepts and categories that are common within the discussion of intellectual capital. The issue we would like you to
consider at this point is how it might be possible to develop measures of ethical
capital or individual competence in order to code, store, share and manage something that could be construed as ethical capital? But also think about whether this
process of identifying and managing ethics ultimately removes the challenge that the
whole idea of ethics represents.
The following sections explore the new kinds of ethical challenges associated with
the knowledge economy.
ETHICS AND THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
There are many new ethical challenges associated with the knowledge economy.
Some of these issues are quite specific and relate to things like the ethics of information collection and protection, for example the types of information that should be
held on databases. However, at a broader level they relate to access to information
and transparency, particularly in relation to knowledge about institutions and what
they do. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (2002), for example, comments on ‘the necessity for increased transparency, improving the information that
citizens have about what . . . institutions do, allowing those who are affected by the
policies to have a greater say in their formation’.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Pengetahuan
Seharusnya tidak mengejutkan bahwa banyak diskusi tentang kapitalisme pengetahuan membahas masalah dari berbagai jenis pengetahuan dan cara mengetahui. Jeda
sejenak dan mencoba untuk merenungkan berbagai jenis pengetahuan yang terlibat dalam membeli
dan bermain game Wii baru. Untuk memulai kita perlu tahu di mana untuk membeli permainan,
bagaimana untuk memuat permainan dan aturan permainan. Kita perlu tahu bagaimana mengoperasikan
unit kontrol (yang mungkin sekarang akan begitu dalam tertanam bahwa itu adalah sifat kedua).
Kami juga tahu teman-teman tertentu yang ahli dalam game tertentu yang kita
dapat menghubungi untuk saran, dan jadi kita bisa orang jahat. Intinya adalah bahwa itu sebenarnya mengejutkan
berapa banyak jenis pengetahuan yang kita gunakan sehari-hari tanpa menyadari
nilai pengetahuan ini kepada kami. Hal yang sama berlaku ketika kita bekerja dan lebih
umum dalam bidang ekonomi. Dalam promosi mereka dari ekonomi pengetahuan,
Bank Dunia (1999) menunjukkan bahwa dua jenis pengetahuan yang penting
bagi negara-negara berkembang: pengetahuan tentang teknologi, atau tahu-bagaimana, dan pengetahuan tentang atribut (dengan kata lain bagaimana Anda tahu kapan sesuatu yang kualitas baik).
Michael Peters (2001) membuat perbedaan antara 'tahu-apa' atau proposisi
pengetahuan, 'tahu-bagaimana' dan 'tahu-who'.1 Dua jenis terakhir lebih diam-diam di alam.
Nahapiet dan Ghoshal (1998 ) sama membedakan antara praktis, experiencebased, pengetahuan dan teoritis, tahu-apa atau tahu-bahwa pengetahuan. Pada tahun 1998,
Departemen Inggris untuk Perdagangan dan Industri menerbitkan kertas putih berjudul, Masa Depan Kompetitif kami: Membangun Pengetahuan-Driven Economy, di mana mereka dibedakan
antara dikodifikasi dan tacit pengetahuan. Sedangkan pengetahuan dikodifikasi dapat dikonversi ke dalam format elektronik cukup mudah dan karena itu cukup portabel, pengetahuan tacit lebih sulit untuk mengisolasi dan diterjemahkan ke dalam bentuk yang mudah diakses orang lain.
Banyak diskusi, kemudian, berkaitan dengan perbedaan antara tacit dan eksplisit
pengetahuan tetapi masalah dengan pengetahuan tacit adalah bahwa hal itu bersifat
dikomunikasikan dan sulit untuk mengelola.
Oleh karena itu pengetahuan dan sifat pengetahuan adalah tema kunci dalam wacana modal intelektual. Namun pertanyaannya adalah apakah dan bagaimana organisasi
berusaha untuk mengenali, menciptakan, mengatur dan mempertahankan setiap kategori intelektual
modal yang dapat ditafsirkan sebagai pengetahuan etika. Jika pengetahuan etika harus
dianggap sebagai kategori penting modal intelektual, bagaimana kita bisa mengkonsep kategori ini aset. Apakah itu sesuatu yang berada dalam individu karyawan seperti
sentimen moral (Sen 1995) atau kecerdasan emosional (McPhail 2004) atau itu karakteristik dari jenis tertentu dari praktek atau jaringan (Nahapiet dan Ghoshal 1998;
Krackhardt dan Hanson 2000)? Jika karyawan Anda memiliki kemampuan untuk memanfaatkan beberapa
perspektif teoritis yang kita bahas di Bagian I, misalnya, jika mereka dapat menempatkan
diri di belakang tabir Rawl ini ketidaktahuan, atau jika mereka bisa membantah kategoris
imperatif, apakah ini merupakan aset organisasi? Managing dan mengukur pengetahuan Setelah berbagai kategori modal intelektual telah diidentifikasi, selanjutnya tahap adalah untuk mendapatkan pengetahuan ke dalam bentuk yang dapat dikemas, disajikan dan diangkut secara elektronik, dengan kata lain untuk membuatnya bisa digunakan dan dikelola. Jan Mouritsen dan rekan-penulis (2001) menunjukkan bahwa proses ini melibatkan mengambil pengetahuan yang implisit dan membuatnya setuju untuk kodifikasi, penyimpanan, transportasi dan berbagi. Ini melibatkan konversi pengetahuan tacit menjadi bentuk eksplisit. Beberapa literatur manajemen bahkan mengusulkan penggunaan teknik analisis jaringan sosial untuk memetakan jaringan informal hubungan karyawan (Krackhardt dan Hanson 1993). Hubungan ini sering dipetakan dalam kaitannya dengan tema-tema seperti 'saran jaringan' dan 'jaringan kepercayaan'. Akhirnya, mari kita mempertimbangkan bagaimana kita bisa pergi tentang pengukuran aset-aset baru. Brennan dan Connell (2000) memberikan beberapa contoh tindakan yang telah digunakan untuk menunjukkan tingkat modal manusia pada khususnya. Ini termasuk jumlah karyawan dengan gelar universitas sebagai ukuran pendidikan; biaya pelatihan tahunan atau jumlah hari pelatihan per karyawan sebagai ukuran biaya pendidikan; dan kuesioner tentang kepuasan kerja untuk mengukur motivasi. Berdasarkan hasil penelaahan literatur, mereka menunjukkan bahwa keterampilan kepemimpinan, kepuasan karyawan, motivasi karyawan dan jumlah tahun pengalaman yang dianggap paling indikator yang berguna dalam kaitannya dengan sumber daya manusia. Karena itu adalah mungkin untuk memikirkan langkah-langkah yang dapat digunakan untuk merekam modal manusia. Namun, kita tidak harus kritis menerima langkah-langkah ini. Roslender dan Fincham (2001), misalnya, menunjukkan bahwa conflating modal manusia ke dalam jenis tindakan adalah refleksi dari kedua mentalitas kalkulatif akuntansi dan pola pikir managerialist yang mengurangi manusia hidup untuk satu set nomor. Kita sekarang telah melalui beberapa konsep dan kategori yang umum dalam diskusi modal intelektual. Masalah kami ingin Anda untuk mempertimbangkan pada saat ini adalah bagaimana mungkin untuk mengembangkan langkah-langkah dari etika modal atau kompetensi individual untuk kode, menyimpan, berbagi dan mengelola sesuatu yang bisa ditafsirkan sebagai modal etis? Tetapi juga berpikir tentang apakah ini proses identifikasi dan mengelola etika akhirnya menghilangkan tantangan bahwa gagasan etika merupakan. Bagian berikut mengeksplorasi jenis baru dari tantangan etis yang terkait dengan ekonomi pengetahuan. ETIKA DAN PENGETAHUAN EKONOMI Ada banyak baru etika tantangan yang berkaitan dengan ekonomi pengetahuan. Beberapa isu-isu ini cukup spesifik dan berhubungan dengan hal-hal seperti etika pengumpulan informasi dan perlindungan, misalnya jenis informasi yang harus dilaksanakan pada database. Namun, pada tingkat yang lebih luas yang berkaitan dengan akses ke informasi dan transparansi, terutama dalam kaitannya dengan pengetahuan tentang lembaga dan apa yang mereka lakukan. Pemenang Hadiah Nobel ekonomi Joseph Stiglitz (2002), misalnya, komentar pada 'perlunya peningkatan transparansi, meningkatkan informasi yang warga miliki tentang apa. . . lembaga lakukan, sehingga mereka yang terpengaruh oleh kebijakan untuk memiliki suara lebih besar dalam pembentukan mereka.
Seharusnya tidak mengejutkan bahwa banyak diskusi tentang kapitalisme pengetahuan membahas masalah dari berbagai jenis pengetahuan dan cara mengetahui. Jeda
sejenak dan mencoba untuk merenungkan berbagai jenis pengetahuan yang terlibat dalam membeli
dan bermain game Wii baru. Untuk memulai kita perlu tahu di mana untuk membeli permainan,
bagaimana untuk memuat permainan dan aturan permainan. Kita perlu tahu bagaimana mengoperasikan
unit kontrol (yang mungkin sekarang akan begitu dalam tertanam bahwa itu adalah sifat kedua).
Kami juga tahu teman-teman tertentu yang ahli dalam game tertentu yang kita
dapat menghubungi untuk saran, dan jadi kita bisa orang jahat. Intinya adalah bahwa itu sebenarnya mengejutkan
berapa banyak jenis pengetahuan yang kita gunakan sehari-hari tanpa menyadari
nilai pengetahuan ini kepada kami. Hal yang sama berlaku ketika kita bekerja dan lebih
umum dalam bidang ekonomi. Dalam promosi mereka dari ekonomi pengetahuan,
Bank Dunia (1999) menunjukkan bahwa dua jenis pengetahuan yang penting
bagi negara-negara berkembang: pengetahuan tentang teknologi, atau tahu-bagaimana, dan pengetahuan tentang atribut (dengan kata lain bagaimana Anda tahu kapan sesuatu yang kualitas baik).
Michael Peters (2001) membuat perbedaan antara 'tahu-apa' atau proposisi
pengetahuan, 'tahu-bagaimana' dan 'tahu-who'.1 Dua jenis terakhir lebih diam-diam di alam.
Nahapiet dan Ghoshal (1998 ) sama membedakan antara praktis, experiencebased, pengetahuan dan teoritis, tahu-apa atau tahu-bahwa pengetahuan. Pada tahun 1998,
Departemen Inggris untuk Perdagangan dan Industri menerbitkan kertas putih berjudul, Masa Depan Kompetitif kami: Membangun Pengetahuan-Driven Economy, di mana mereka dibedakan
antara dikodifikasi dan tacit pengetahuan. Sedangkan pengetahuan dikodifikasi dapat dikonversi ke dalam format elektronik cukup mudah dan karena itu cukup portabel, pengetahuan tacit lebih sulit untuk mengisolasi dan diterjemahkan ke dalam bentuk yang mudah diakses orang lain.
Banyak diskusi, kemudian, berkaitan dengan perbedaan antara tacit dan eksplisit
pengetahuan tetapi masalah dengan pengetahuan tacit adalah bahwa hal itu bersifat
dikomunikasikan dan sulit untuk mengelola.
Oleh karena itu pengetahuan dan sifat pengetahuan adalah tema kunci dalam wacana modal intelektual. Namun pertanyaannya adalah apakah dan bagaimana organisasi
berusaha untuk mengenali, menciptakan, mengatur dan mempertahankan setiap kategori intelektual
modal yang dapat ditafsirkan sebagai pengetahuan etika. Jika pengetahuan etika harus
dianggap sebagai kategori penting modal intelektual, bagaimana kita bisa mengkonsep kategori ini aset. Apakah itu sesuatu yang berada dalam individu karyawan seperti
sentimen moral (Sen 1995) atau kecerdasan emosional (McPhail 2004) atau itu karakteristik dari jenis tertentu dari praktek atau jaringan (Nahapiet dan Ghoshal 1998;
Krackhardt dan Hanson 2000)? Jika karyawan Anda memiliki kemampuan untuk memanfaatkan beberapa
perspektif teoritis yang kita bahas di Bagian I, misalnya, jika mereka dapat menempatkan
diri di belakang tabir Rawl ini ketidaktahuan, atau jika mereka bisa membantah kategoris
imperatif, apakah ini merupakan aset organisasi? Managing dan mengukur pengetahuan Setelah berbagai kategori modal intelektual telah diidentifikasi, selanjutnya tahap adalah untuk mendapatkan pengetahuan ke dalam bentuk yang dapat dikemas, disajikan dan diangkut secara elektronik, dengan kata lain untuk membuatnya bisa digunakan dan dikelola. Jan Mouritsen dan rekan-penulis (2001) menunjukkan bahwa proses ini melibatkan mengambil pengetahuan yang implisit dan membuatnya setuju untuk kodifikasi, penyimpanan, transportasi dan berbagi. Ini melibatkan konversi pengetahuan tacit menjadi bentuk eksplisit. Beberapa literatur manajemen bahkan mengusulkan penggunaan teknik analisis jaringan sosial untuk memetakan jaringan informal hubungan karyawan (Krackhardt dan Hanson 1993). Hubungan ini sering dipetakan dalam kaitannya dengan tema-tema seperti 'saran jaringan' dan 'jaringan kepercayaan'. Akhirnya, mari kita mempertimbangkan bagaimana kita bisa pergi tentang pengukuran aset-aset baru. Brennan dan Connell (2000) memberikan beberapa contoh tindakan yang telah digunakan untuk menunjukkan tingkat modal manusia pada khususnya. Ini termasuk jumlah karyawan dengan gelar universitas sebagai ukuran pendidikan; biaya pelatihan tahunan atau jumlah hari pelatihan per karyawan sebagai ukuran biaya pendidikan; dan kuesioner tentang kepuasan kerja untuk mengukur motivasi. Berdasarkan hasil penelaahan literatur, mereka menunjukkan bahwa keterampilan kepemimpinan, kepuasan karyawan, motivasi karyawan dan jumlah tahun pengalaman yang dianggap paling indikator yang berguna dalam kaitannya dengan sumber daya manusia. Karena itu adalah mungkin untuk memikirkan langkah-langkah yang dapat digunakan untuk merekam modal manusia. Namun, kita tidak harus kritis menerima langkah-langkah ini. Roslender dan Fincham (2001), misalnya, menunjukkan bahwa conflating modal manusia ke dalam jenis tindakan adalah refleksi dari kedua mentalitas kalkulatif akuntansi dan pola pikir managerialist yang mengurangi manusia hidup untuk satu set nomor. Kita sekarang telah melalui beberapa konsep dan kategori yang umum dalam diskusi modal intelektual. Masalah kami ingin Anda untuk mempertimbangkan pada saat ini adalah bagaimana mungkin untuk mengembangkan langkah-langkah dari etika modal atau kompetensi individual untuk kode, menyimpan, berbagi dan mengelola sesuatu yang bisa ditafsirkan sebagai modal etis? Tetapi juga berpikir tentang apakah ini proses identifikasi dan mengelola etika akhirnya menghilangkan tantangan bahwa gagasan etika merupakan. Bagian berikut mengeksplorasi jenis baru dari tantangan etis yang terkait dengan ekonomi pengetahuan. ETIKA DAN PENGETAHUAN EKONOMI Ada banyak baru etika tantangan yang berkaitan dengan ekonomi pengetahuan. Beberapa isu-isu ini cukup spesifik dan berhubungan dengan hal-hal seperti etika pengumpulan informasi dan perlindungan, misalnya jenis informasi yang harus dilaksanakan pada database. Namun, pada tingkat yang lebih luas yang berkaitan dengan akses ke informasi dan transparansi, terutama dalam kaitannya dengan pengetahuan tentang lembaga dan apa yang mereka lakukan. Pemenang Hadiah Nobel ekonomi Joseph Stiglitz (2002), misalnya, komentar pada 'perlunya peningkatan transparansi, meningkatkan informasi yang warga miliki tentang apa. . . lembaga lakukan, sehingga mereka yang terpengaruh oleh kebijakan untuk memiliki suara lebih besar dalam pembentukan mereka.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- Because I do not speak fluent english
- cantekin de la prision
- In Panel B we report the number of firm
- Bende seni aşkım benim seni çok ama çok
- Aku ingin kau menemaniku hidup dan mati
- Nanti tanggal
- In Panel B we report the number of firm
- Aku ingin kau menemaniku hidup dan mati
- I need one of these hugs for you
- a. Memilih pemirsa (pendengar atau pemba
- ko gak di komen mz
- a. Memilih pemirsa (pendengar atau pemba
- love you no more
- di tempat ini pernah menjadi pusat pemer
- chairman
- Aku ingin kau menemaniku sekarang dan se
- I need one of these hugs to you
- Aku ingin kau menemaniku sekarang dan se
- Seperti yang kita lihat pada Airliner of
- Memilih pemirsa (pendengar atau pembaca)
- Bagaimana keadaan kota syria sekarang
- Memilih pemirsa (pendengar atau pembaca)
- In Panel B we report the number of firm
- They don't know how long it takesWaiting
