CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES
May 2000, Vol. 43, No. 5
"Hi, Rich! What have you been up to?""I'm working part-time for SNET now. The Aircraft laid me off. I'm doing telephone installations. It's not bad work, but I feel sorry for the customers. I got hired, got zilch training, and got sent out to do installations. Half the time, I get there and the customer needs something different from the stuff that our salespeople put on the order. I have to apologize all over the place to the customer, who maybe took the day off from work to get his line connected. The poor guy has to make another appointment on another day with an another installer. SNET screwed up by giving early retirement to so many people. They don't have the know-how to get the work done."
My chance meeting with Rich stayed on my mind because I was hearing complaints from phone customers and similar stories from people in other industries. Big companies were shedding people to improve efficiency. Technology would get the same work out of fewer people. Wall Street applauded. CEO's received bonuses.
However, in many companies, the "same" work was not being done. Remaining workers often could not do the jobs of the terminated personnel who took their knowledge with them. Some former employees, now "consultants," sold that knowledge back, at premium prices, to the companies that had dumped them, or took it to competitors.
Knowledge is a slippery, complex concept. We understand that the term data refers to basic facts about things: size, weight, color, price, temperature, etc. We might confuse information with data because information is "data that makes a difference." Information is a message sent to inform a receiver. Few of us would confuse knowledge with data. Knowledge connotes intelligence, experience, insight, and expertise. We carry our knowledge in our minds, not on a message pad.
As intangible as it is, knowledge has value and should be treated as an organizational asset. People within an organization trade in a "knowledge market" where there are buyers, sellers, and brokers. Buyers seek understanding about fairly complex matters, not just facts. They are often managers and executives who understand the value of what they seek, though everyone plays the role of buyer sometime. Sellers are those believed to have the knowledge needed by buyers. Not everyone makes a good seller. Some possess knowledge that is too specialized. Others cannot articulate what they know. Bringing together buyers and sellers are the brokers, often shrewd traders who demand payment for their services.
Within organizations, payment comes in the form of reciprocity, repute, and altruism. Sellers transfer knowledge to buyers for a future benefit, perhaps access to knowledge held by the seller or a service that the buyer can provide to the seller when he needs it. Gaining a reputation for sharing precious information can make a seller a valuable member of an organization, someone worthy of promotion or a pay raise. Altruism is a reward for dedicated personnel who are committed to their organization's success.
Trust is essential to the transfer of knowledge within an organization. No written contracts exist in the knowledge market. Trust starts with managers who recognize and reward knowledge sharers. Managers who take advantage of the expertise of others in order to consolidate their own positions retard knowledge transfer. Managers must sometimes tolerate and trust some non-work activities. For example, those "bull sessions" at the water cooler or coffee pot may be valuable opportunities for the exchange of knowledge.
Davenport and Prusak have observations that are relevant to librarians. The authors noticed that corporate librarians often play the vital role of knowledge brokers within their organizations because they know who is working on which project. How many of us would see this aspect of our job as more than a by-product of our real work? The authors demonstrate how status affects the value of a seller's product. In one of their studies, the report of a librarian, very well organized and citing the most reliable and recent of sources, was dismissed by the company CEO in favor of an obviously inferior report prepared by a senior vice president. This suggests that the low status accorded to librarians may hurt our organizations as much as it hurts us.
In contrast, Davenport and Prusak offer the example of Owens-Corning, where the corporate library was transformed into the "Knowledge Resource Center." Librarians there got out of the business of "fetching" information for their customers. Instead, they helped customers do it themselves, and consulted with their customers on how to make the best use of print and online resources. They concentrated on developing "knowledge maps," guides that point to information instead of containing it. This is a traditional library function. Perhaps librarians never were in the information business. Maybe we have always been in the knowledge business.
Return to Looking at Books Online