MBA EM GESTÃO E EFICIÊNCIA ENERGÉTICA

Prezados

Segue folder de um MBA no setor elétrico, que pode ser uma opção muito interessante para quem desejar fazer uma especialização.


Forte abraço



Fernando Goldman

Plataformas de EaD e as CoP criam conhecimento ?

Prezada Fernanda

Não assisti à teleconferência mencionada por você, por isso precisaria de mais detalhes sobre como foi feita a pergunta ao Takeuchi e sobre como ele deu a resposta, mas em princípio concordo com ele que, de um modo geral, as plataformas de EaD e as comunidades de prática, por si só não sejam modalidades/instrumentos de transformação e de produção de conhecimento.

Observe porém que toda generalização é perigosa.

Acredito que a resposta dele precisaria ser melhor contextualizada na Teoria da Criação do Conhecimento Organizacional, da qual ele é um importante desenvolvedor. Para sermos coerentes, ao fazer uma pergunta ao desenvolvedor de uma teoria, deveríamos esperar que ele nos respondesse de acordo com sua própria teoria. Concorda?

Quem sou eu para me propor a explicar uma resposta do Takeuchi, mas vale a pena a gente tentar esclarecer alguns detalhes, que podem ser importantes para entender o que ele quis dizer.

Primeiro, é fundamental conceituar o que para ele é conhecimento. Na Teoria da Criação do Conhecimento Organizacional, o conhecimento dentro de uma empresa envolve três aspectos: i) o conhecimento é uma crença justificada em uma verdade; ii) o conhecimento é uma capacitação de agir eficazmente e tomar decisões; e iii) o conhecimento é contextual.

Depois, a abordagem epistemológica que ele usa é a de Michael Polanyi, na qual se entende que o conhecimento tácito e o conhecimento explícito só podem ser conceitualmente distinguidos ao longo de um continuum. Significa dizer que todo conhecimento – existente apenas nos indivíduos – é parte tácita e parte explicitável.

Para Takeuchi a transformação e produção de conhecimento no âmbito da empresa se traduzem em criação de conhecimento organizacional, que é obtida pela interação entre os conhecimentos predominantemente tácitos e os predominantemente explícitos.

Assim, não é de se estranhar que ele tenha dito não acreditar que as plataformas de EaD e as CoP criem conhecimento, pois elas sozinhas não propiciam o ciclo de criação do conhecimento organizacional descrito no modelo SECI. Podem, sim, ser parte do processo.

Muitas vezes plataformas de EaD e as CoP menos elaboradas, não diferenciam informações de conhecimento explícito, mas isso é um erro conceitual básico. Não importa o quão boa seja uma informação. Ela é informação. É estática.

É comum também a confusão entre o conhecimento explícito e os conteúdos produzidos a partir dele. O conteúdo é estático. O conhecimento explícito é dinâmico. É uma capacitação de agir eficazmente e tomar decisões que pode produzir conteúdo. Este conteúdo pode se tornar um tipo de informação (emissor - conteúdo - receptor). Como conteúdo, ele não pode mudar. Não é cumulativo. Não pode melhorar a si mesmo.

Se alguém informar este conteúdo para outra pessoa, essa pessoa pode ser capaz – ou não – de usar essas informações para produzir novo conhecimento. Nunca o mesmo conhecimento, mas um novo conhecimento. O novo conhecimento de uma outra pessoa. Observe que os conteúdos são os mesmos, mas o conhecimento resultante é variado.

Resumindo, acho que Takeuchi tentou te dizer é que essas ferramentas que você elencou, Plataformas de EaD e CoP, por si só não são capazes de fazer o ciclo SECI completo necessário à criação do conhecimento organizacional.

É interessante observar, por outro lado, que o próprio Takeuchi vem defendendo a idéia de que uma ênfase exagerada no conhecimento tácito pode também comprometer essa execução completa do ciclo SECI.

Bem, espero ter ajudado mais do que confundido.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

Postagem feita originalmente no forum da SBGC em 24.01.2010.

A Dinâmica do Conhecimento Organizacional - 3ª Parte

Prezados

Segue a 3ª parte do vídeo da apresentação feita sobre " A Dinâmica do Conhecimento Organizacional" feita no GRUPO INTERATIVO DE GESTÃO DO CONHECIMENTO E INOVAÇÃO, na íntegra sem qualquer edição ainda.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

A Dinâmica do Conhecimento Organizacional - 2ª Parte

Prezados

Segue a 2ª parte do vídeo da apresentação feita sobre " A Dinâmica do Conhecimento Organizacional" feita no GRUPO INTERATIVO DE GESTÃO DO CONHECIMENTO E INOVAÇÃO, na íntegra sem qualquer edição ainda.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

A Dinâmica do Conhecimento Organizacional - 1ª Parte

Prezados

Segue a 1ª parte do vídeo da apresentação feita sobre " A Dinâmica do Conhecimento Organizacional" feita no GRUPO INTERATIVO DE GESTÃO DO CONHECIMENTO E INOVAÇÃO, na íntegra sem qualquer edição ainda.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

KM is a set of intentional practices

Prezados

Compartilho outra postagem, feita em 13.01.2010, no grupo Knowledge Management Experts do Linkedin.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

Blake

As a first approximation, your definition of KM is very good.

"KM is a set of intentional practices, processes, principles and methodologies designed to support the continuous generation of new knowledge (innovation) by inculcating into the work flow of an organization, a cycle (or culture of continuous learning?) of iterative improvement, culminating in a level of organizational intelligence (or instinct) which leads to increased performance by allowing organizations to be agile, adaptive and innovative in the face of ever changing market (external) forces."

I think some details need to be refined, but it really is an excellent starting point.

I use a different definition of KM, but I acknowledge my definition is very specific of my view of KM. In my definition I talk about KM as a set of "actions and support practices used in order to coordenate and integrate policies and processes of organizational knowledge"

I guess some kinds of knowledge/ information in the firm are responsability of Corporate Education. These knowledge are so explicit that they can be supplied by e- learning or presential learning. They contribute to Organizational Knowledge, of course, but they do not create competitive advantages.

Let's wait for more comments, but I would like to propose that you would try to characterize the KM as a "meta-process that, by actions and support practices, acts on the policies and processes of the firm". I think this is important because many people think KM as producing knowledge.

What do you think about?

F. Goldman

Tacit knowledge is the true creator of evolutionary routines

Prezados

Compartilho outra postagem, feita hoje, no grupo Knowledge Management Experts do Linkedin.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

Erich and Nick

I would like to sugest to replace colletive by organizational and accept that KM is a part of Organizational Intelligence. An organizational knowledge has diferent characteristics of a colletive knowledge. The emergence. In a colletive knowledge 1+1 is 2. In a organizational knowledge 1+1 may be 2, > 2 or < 2. Depends on the "management", but a diferent kind of management.

The term ‘Knowledge Management’ has been applied to a very broad spectrum of activities designed to manage, exchange, protect and create or enhance organizational knowledge, in order to improve intellectual capital of a firm. Due to its firm-specific character, there is no widespread agreement on what KM actually is. Exception to the fact that KM must be a source of competitive advantage to the firm.

The aim is to have 1+1 > 2.

So, KM must permit a firm achieves a balance between being efficient in running today’s business, while being adaptive ( efficacy) to changes in their environment ensuring that firm also survives in the future ( efetivity).

To be efficient in running today’s business involves to know what the firm knows. It involves a focus in explicit knowledge to produce improvement routines, supported by information sharing.

To be adaptive involves to accept uncertainty and limited rationality, ie, to deal with tacit knowledge, the true creator of evolutionary routines.

Information is static, knowledge is dynamic

Prezados

Compartilho outra postagem, feita em 12.01.2010, no grupo Knowledge Management Experts do Linkedin.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

John

You Said: “Knowledge doesn’t exist independent from a person”. I agree.
After that, you said

“The information that comes from people who have experience with certain processes, and know the workarounds and tricks to many contexts is the information that is really handy, and this is what I think people refer to as explicit knowledge”.

You are right, but those people are wrong.

Some people refer to information as explicit knowledge, but this is a basic conceptual mistake. Do not matter how much good is information, it is information. It is static.

It is common that somebody confuse explicit knowledge and the produced from it content. The content is static. Explicit knowledge is dynamic. It is a capability that is possible to be transformed in a content. When it is a content, it is a kind of information and not more knowledge. As a content, it do not have the capability to change. To improve itself.

If somebody inform this content to another person, this person may be able - or not - to use this information to produce new knowledge. Never the same knowledge, but a new knowledge. The knowledge of that new person.

Do you agree with this?

Explicit knowledge and information are not the same thing

Prezados

Compartilho outra postagem, feita em 12.01.2010, no grupo Knowledge Management Experts do Linkedin.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

I'm really surprised to note that there is a minimum of convergence on basic concepts.

I thought that at least there was already consensus among experts that the explicit knowledge can not be called information, simply because they are not the same thing.

In fact, they are very different things and to understand this is very important.

A simple argument to show that they are not the same thing is that there is no direct conversion between explicit knowledge and information.

It is possible that someone has knowledge, a capability for effective action and decision-making, and that, although able to do so, this someone did not explicit this knowledge in some form of information possible, whether spoken, written, danced and so on.

Similarly, information available does not guarantee that anyone who has access to it is able to transform it into knowledge. This is possible only if the necessary context to transform it into knowledge is present.

I would like to suggest who still has doubts in this regard the papers of Firestone and McElroy (in particular to differentiate tacit, implicit and explicit knowledge) or Snowden (to better understand the importance of context). See a lot of them in Google.

ICT does not create sustainable competitive advantages

Prezados

Compartilho outra postagem, feita em 12.01.2010, no grupo Knowledge Management Experts do Linkedin.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

John

I like and agree with most of your coments, but I'm afraid of emphasis on technological tools.

The ICT (Information and Communication Technologies), through their tools, including Web 2.0, can play a important role in the Organizational Knowledge Management , being leveraging factor of actions that help to disseminate explicit knowledge of employees. In other words, ICT help to do the management of information that must be disseminated in the company to increase the integration of knowledge that the company has of itself and its business environment. Without good Information Management, there are no KM.

Important is to realize that ICT tools are a decisive part of KM, but they can not by itself adequately create Organizational Knowledge, which is the result of the interaction of tacit and explicit knowledge in the company. The creation of conditions enabling the creation of Organizational Knowledge should be seen as the main objective of the KM and in this respect, ICT can also work, but they do not have a so decisive role to create sustainable competitive advantages.

Which are the policies and processes of organizational knowledge

Compartilho outra postagem, feita em 11.01.2010, no grupo Knowledge Management Experts do Linkedin.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

To say that KM is a meta-process which improves policies and processes to deal with organizational knowledge requires a clear understanding of which are these policies and processes.

It is very common to hear that KM is responsible for the knowledge processes and those would be: creating ; organizing; sharing; dissemination; collaboration; capturing; use; application; validation; protection; and a large list of verbs that can be applied to the knowledge of people.

Are these processes or only verbs? Are they actions that should occur naturally in well-done working of day-by-day during the conduction of organizational routines or specific operational processes? Are there firms that have those kinds of actions/routines/processes as a aim? Even knowledge-intensive firms?

O fim do mar?

Prezados

Segue vídeo sobre a campanha sobre o fim da linha.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

Entra em acção em www.greenpeace.pt

Benjamin Coriat fala sobre a barreira das patentes nas economias capitalistas

Prezados

Recomendo o excelente vídeo de programa apresentado na Globo News:

http://video.globo.com/Videos/Player/Noticias/0,,GIM1176174-7823-BENJAMIN+CORIAT+FALA+SOBRE+A+BARREIRA+DAS+PATENTES+NAS+ECONOMIAS+CAPITALISTAS,00.html

Descrição: Segunda-feira, 14/12/2009

A transformação de patentes em commodities é o tema central das pesquisas de Benjamin Coriat. Ele acompanha de perto a luta dos países emergentes para furar o bloqueio da estagnação científica.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

Organizational Knowledge Management is firm-specific

Prezados

Compartilho outra postagem feita hoje no grupo Knowledge Management Experts do Linkedin.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

Again, I would like to reinforce the old idea that "You can not manage knowledge", even though I would like to believe that this is already a consensus.
On the other hand, the acceptance of Organizational Knowledge emergence idea is essentially a recognition that it can not be characterized only by the sum ( in this case:sharing) of knowledge of the individual components of the firm. This is a very important point, since if not adequately understood, the firm will try and will have difficulty to control your Organizational Knowledge through deduction rules or linear thinking that people usually use to manage anyone operational process, either commercial or technical.
Important is to understand that the mere accumulation of information does not guarantee the emergence of an Organizational Knowledge able to create the competitive advantages necessary for longevity of the firm. And more, as well as Organizational Knowledge is a firm-specific resource, the meta - process of KM must also be firm-specific. Of course, there are general concepts and fundaments which characterize KM discipline.

Knowledge Sharing is only a part of what KM is

Prezados

Compartilho postagem feita hoje no grupo Knowledge Management Experts do Linkedin.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

When we see KM as just a label ( as stated above by David Gurteen ) and if we understand that it should actually be our aim to build a discipline that helps us to better deal with Organizational Knowledge, an emergence which can only be controlled (managed) into the concepts of Complexity Theory, then knowledge sharing is now only a part of what KM is. An important part, but only a part.

Como chamar a KM ?

Prezados

Compartilho postagens de hoje no grupo Knowledge Management Experts do Linkedin.

Forte abraço

Fernando Goldman

I guess that KM only makes sense if understood as a meta-process that defines the actions and support practices used to improve policies and processes of firm to contribute to the better emergency of its Organizational Knowledge . The Organizational Knowledge, provide that well managed, allows the firm to seek sustainable competitive advantages and turns itself into a valuable and unique resource.
We can not manage knowledge - nobody can. What we can do is manage organizational knowledge, a complex phenomenon, by managing the environment in which knowledge can be created.
So to substitute the term "KM" I would call the discipline Organizational Knowledge Management. But I agree with David Gurteen that KM is only a label and it is not meant to be descriptive. So we should keep the term KM.