Although we agree, it is good to insist on it: progress in improving productivity and competitiveness cannot remain in the ubiquity of ICT (information and communication technologies), as if they constituted, in themselves, the only and indisputable door to the future, the key to prosperity, the solution to our problems. In the future challenge that we face, ICT tools or solutions are, for the most part, welcome, but the key points more to human capital, and we must be fully aware of this to avoid that kind of reverential stupefaction that advances technological.
The reader will have other perceptions, but I think that the technological deployment has been showing us at times arrogant and even aggressive, pleased protagonist of the Information Society, very sure to constitute the cardinal architect of the inexcusable innovation, the incontestable solution for the Organizational synergies and collective intelligence, the guarantee of the use and flow of knowledge in companies, the unquestionable vehicle of lifelong learning through so-called e-learning… All this would have to be reviewed point by point, in case there were nuances and we had to put the things in their place. At the moment, it is no longer known whether the person who owns the information has the power, or whether it seems more certain that the person who owns the technology owns (or believes they own) the power… You will see why I say it.
Initial reflections
Any one of us - I will go down to the sand - can be declared a heretic, and go around being eluded, not because of a lack of cybernetic culture, but by putting buts to the use of certain tools, in which he feels he is the servant of technology and not upside down. As a user, I do not care if the sin is from technology or who imposes a particular use of it, but I have known cases in which tools came to institutionalize false information, to implant an unintelligible language, to turn it into a nightmare the simple monthly project contribution report…
It is true that the information and communication technologies represent a very valuable help - I say this convinced - despite having made us all dependent on the computer, and at the same time - because the complexity of the device is beyond us - from our fellow technologists; naturally we have assigned a place of honor for the PC, both in the office and at home; But let's not fool ourselves: with the proper perspective, our work tool would not be so much the computer as the information that it allows us to access for consultation, for use as raw material in the generation of new information, etc.
The knowledge that the emerging knowledge and innovation economy talks about does not come from technology, but from the information it supports. Technology allows us to store and process information, but knowledge resides in people and is part of human capital. Technology is --it must be at the service of the user, of her productivity, of her performance, and if it were not so, it would not work: it would be poorly invented. In short, technology is what it is, and get off the pedestal that corresponds to human capital, the true flag of our economy. Let's cultivate the ideal use of technology, but let's cultivate and nurture, above all, human capital.
Almost a digression
Months ago, the spokesperson for the association (perceived as a lobby) Redtel, Miguel Canalejo, expressed his intention to place Spain at the head of the Information Society, while interviewing responsible politicians (obviously, from the capacity of action of the four, Telefónica, Orange, Vodafone and Ono, associated telecommunication operators). Welcome the intention - perhaps the government will think - but if, in speaking of the “head” of the Information Society, the productivity and competitiveness of our companies were pursued, this would perhaps be much more complex.
I do not know if Canalejo, financier, job cutter and director of large companies, serves the national interest or, legitimately, that of the four Redtel companies that signed him; but it can be imagined that Aetic, the representative of the entire ICT sector, will also sincerely want a rapid consolidation of the knowledge economy, a kind of alter ego of the Information Society. In any case, we would have to separate continents and contents, means and ends, public and private interests, as well as the concepts of information and knowledge, of renewal and innovation, of quality and bureaucracy… To reach the desired levels of productivity and competitiveness, we need technology, but, above all, and if the reader agrees, human capital.
It is good that we have telecommunication structures and, in general, advanced information and communication technologies, facing the prosperity of companies; but the essence of the information is, yes, its content, its meaning, and not the support - extremely powerful, but support - in which it is offered to us. The meaning, as is known, is provided by the individual, whether it is printed or electronic information. If I may say so, technology is to the signifiers, as the individual is to the meanings; and for the same price I would add, almost in a digression, that the concept of "human resources" is to the industrial age, as that of "human capital" to the era of knowledge; that the mere technological renovation is to the concept of innovation, as the explicit knowledge to the intuitive…
The four hiatus
At this point of reflection, we have spoken here of two gaps. First, access, through ICTs, to the information alluded to by the “Information Society”: not because we have the technology, we have enough and suitable information; and second, the generation of valuable and applicable knowledge from the available information: a translation, that of the information into knowledge, nothing immediate in many cases. Perhaps, to unfold perspective, we must already identify the four gaps:
- From the use of ICT, to access to the information that is offered to us. From the examination of information, to valuable, solid and applicable knowledge. From practical knowledge, to the best professional performance. From knowledge / mastery of our technical area, to innovation well understood.
The reader will notice, with regard to the first hiatus, that, once the use of ICT is widespread, it is no longer a question of overcoming it through mere digital or computer literacy, but, on the one hand, of ensuring that the continents contain, and on the other, to know how to search with the proper strategy and tenacity. For example, and although all this is undoubtedly more complex, very complex, it is not enough to manage on the Internet, but we need to find relevant information related to the subject at hand, and do it in a short time. To overcome this first hiatus we need computer skills, but also insight, intuition, sharpness.
Once we access the information sought (or perhaps it has been sent to us by some means, without having to search for it), we come across the second hiatus. In passing information to knowledge, we should not rush, although many pass by here. Overcoming the second hiatus requires mastery of the so-called informational skills (my publisher preferred to put “informative” in a book of mine: it is a very important publisher, and he did not feel compelled to consult me). On this topic and just to show my concerns and reflections, and to encourage debate, I have published numerous articles in printed and electronic magazines, in Spain and Latin America; But the information literacy movement started about 20 years ago, if not earlier. Within the informational competences, I always emphasize critical thinking,that seems to have a blocked passage in companies, perhaps because it merges or is confused with criticality or skepticism.
Suppose that, after deploying numerous informational competencies of a cognitive, emotional and operational nature, we have arrived at the valuable, solid and applicable knowledge that we were looking for; from there to the application there is a third hiatus, because knowledge enables action, but effective, successful, fruitful, really productive action requires something more, both endogenously (attitudes, faculties, abilities, mental models, behaviors…) as exogenous (a good organization in the company). The continuous training that is orchestrated usually focuses on this third hiatus and incorporates the doctrine of the competency movement; that is to say, in the first and third hiatuses we have been repairing… Those that perhaps escape us the most are the second and fourth. Let's go to the room.
Attention to the fourth hiatus
The fourth hiatus is the one that leads us to innovation based on knowledge. Possessing knowledge serves not to reinvent the wheel, or anything else already invented; but it does not guarantee that we can expand our field of knowledge; It does not ensure that we can offer society valuable news that makes us more competitive and prosperous. Overcoming this hiatus requires more than brainstorming (which is also poorly practiced); However, it does not always require great research and development efforts: a prepared mind may suffice, as Pasteur said.
In 1997, we read in Fortune magazine: “Innovation is the unique characteristic that enhances the best companies. Companies that know how to innovate do not necessarily invest large sums in research and development; instead, they cultivate a new corporate style of behavior that admits new ideas, changes, risks, and even mistakes. ” More than ten years later, the message seems to continue: the results can be spectacular when we dedicate ourselves to thinking with penetration and care, and display valuable connections and abstractions.
The expert and innovative professional of our days - as an observer, curious, intuitive, shrewd and militant of lifelong learning - indeed finds connections and analogies even when they are not very visible; we can even say that it catalyzes them and that it deploys different connection axes. Recall some of the characteristics that Mitchell Ditkoff, president of Idea Champions, highlighted in the most creative individuals in their companies: they question the status quo, look for new possibilities, take risks, notice hidden connections, focus on challenges, continually learn, They show insight, reconcile intuition with reason, display conceptual, critical, and systemic thinking…
Indeed, the so-called “knowledge worker” that Peter Drucker was talking about, has been attributed other labels by other experts: learning worker, innovation worker, thinking worker…, and we could definitely talk about the knowledge worker, thinking and innovating: a lifelong learner who is sometimes able to add new knowledge (innovate) to their professional area. Curiously, and although it is not possible to generalize, in some large companies this profile could be partially neutralized by the insistent preaching of curious leadership models, which seem more like followings. Sometimes there seems to be, in effect, more space to think freely and professionally in SMEs, although in general the deployment of unique doctrines and evangelizing liturgies has surely subsided,with the chief executive as supreme pontiff.
Perhaps from the industrial era we drag the image of the creative worker as an individual who constitutes a nightmare for his boss; But the fact is that the new economy demands professionals who think and are capable of generating valuable novelties: the most intelligent companies, large or small, catalyze the materialization of this capacity. Therefore, it is necessary that, within the concept of lifelong learning, we include the development of cognitive faculties and specific personal strengths: those that contribute most to innovation. In fact, it is necessary that we learn (knowledge and skills) what others already know, and also what nobody knows yet (that we explore, discover, innovate). The reader can and should agree and disagree, which is what it is when we share reflections:thanks for your attention.
