O yes. In the post The dirty little secret of Management Gary Hamel alerts us to the ephemeral nature of knowledge.
"In a world of knowledge for general consumption, yields are going to companies that can produce knowledge nonstandard."
"In all industries, there are plenty of critical knowledge that have been commoditized, and the rest will soon. What matters now is how quickly a company can generate new ideas and build new knowledge of the type that enhances customer value. "
The Green Paper describes the knowledge and the resource key raw material and process innovation explicitly states that knowledge must be prior to innovation. The view from Gary Hamel is interesting because it changes the order of factors: innovation is precisely to generate new knowledge. Knowledge is a product of innovation, not raw materials. Maybe not a final product, but product after all. However
something that lies in the Green Paper itself as between different types of knowledge, called knowledge that identifies the continuum. And indeed, in the synthesis or final definition of knowledge as a value, packaged with the learning.
Without referring specifically to innovation, not Seth Godin thinks that raw knowledge, by itself, can be considered an indispensable asset for a company or professional. This is an excerpt from his book Are you indispensable? .
"The depth of knowledge alone is not enough. The shared knowledge Wikipedia and the Internet brings us make field knowledge alone is worth significantly less today. Nowadays, if all you can offer many knowledge of those in the reference books, you're a loser, because the Internet knows more than you. "
"Depth knowledge combined with a good criterion is worth a lot. The depth of knowledge combined with diagnostic techniques or nuanced insight also worth a lot. In contrast, knowledge by itself, I find it much cheaper and faster to consult an expert on the Internet. "
E illustrates his claims with divergent paths, starting from a similar situation, followed by companies run by Rick Wagoner and Alan Mulally. The first, although a perfect knowledge of the automotive industry and the culture of General Motors, not in vain throughout his brilliant career it had developed in the company, failed to prevent their failure. Yes Alan knew how to do Mulally at Ford, even though it came from Boeing with a complete ignorance of the sector and enterprise. All knowledge of Wagoner did not help, contrary to the clear vision and leadership skills of Mulally.
The truth is that I find hard to take the knowledge and value innovation. To say that knowledge is necessary for innovation is obvious. It's like saying you need air balloons to fly. That is the key. A firm may hoard tons of knowledge, this has never been lacking in good company as always, and yet be quite conservative in culture, approach and vision. Values \u200b\u200bare what moves us to action, what we have to guide and encourage the creative and difficult process of transformation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment