Although we can talk about knowledge almost from the appearance of man himself and there are millenary professions such as education, which at least in theory, promote knowledge management, only until the 90s of the previous century, Knowledge Management emerged with capital letters, as a growing multidisciplinary field, with its own concepts and tools, with very broad implications and applications, especially to the world of organizations.
This recent growth is partially explained by the historical moment in which we live. The agrarian and industrial eras are behind, at least in a significant number of countries and territories, and the information and knowledge era has emerged. In the words of Drucker (in Portela, 2001) “what makes today's society different is not that knowledge is another resource such as land or capital, but that it is the resource”. Or in the words of Nonaka (2000), “in an economy like the current one, where the only certainty is uncertainty, the best source to obtain a lasting competitive advantage is knowledge”.
When you hear the term Knowledge Management, some automatically think of information technology. However, as Hall (2001) argues, technology is only a means. What really matters in organizations is the quality of the content to be promoted and the sponsorship of a culture of learning, factors highly associated with human capital.
An excellent technological platform to manage information in the organization, it can be underused or in the worst case not used, due to the lack of knowledge of the role of human capital in knowledge management.
By reviewing texts and portals such as www.gestiondel-knowledge.com, many authors coincide in stating the importance of people (human capital) to guarantee the success of any knowledge management program. However, in that same review it is found that the greatest theoretical and applied developments have occurred in the other two fields of intellectual capital, that is, structural capital and relational capital, and not in human capital.
This article is an attempt to identify both levels and variables in the study of human capital, in its relation to knowledge management.
The model presented is made up of three levels: individual, group and organizational. Variables are defined at each level, which are relevant in the light of the author's experience (see graph). Certainly other variables may be added on the recommendation of other authors or due to their specific importance in certain contexts.
Figure 1. Model of Levels and Variables of Human Capital Associated with Knowledge Management (Castañeda, D.)
The primary level of the model is Individual. The variables that have been prioritized for their influence on the processes and life of organizations are: Perceptions, attitudes, values, learning, skills, knowledge, decision-making, motivation and behavior.
The proposed division of the individual is more pedagogical than structural. That is, the variables are not independent or autonomous, but they interact permanently. For example, a specific perception of an individual on a topic influences the degree of motivation they have for related learning.
The second level is the Group. The variables that have been identified are: Learning, skills, knowledge, values, motivation, decision making, conflict resolution, leadership, teamwork, communication and culture.
A group is understood as both structurally constituted units, for example, departments and offices, as well as functionally constituted, for example, work commissions to carry out a task. The suggested criterion to recognize whether or not there is a group is the one proposed by Robbins (1999), for whom a group is two or more people, interacting and interdependent who work together to achieve a particular objective.
The third level is the Organizational. The variables at this level, with regard to Human Capital (structural capital variables are not included) are: values, culture, learning, teamwork, leadership, communications, conflict resolution, motivation, skills, knowledge, decision-making. decisions and communication.
Some variables, such as values, learning, and knowledge, are important at all three levels of the model. Therefore, each organization, in addition to worrying about identifying and defining them, must evaluate their coherence between the levels.
Just by way of example, an entity, in addition to formulating or identifying explicit or implicit corporate values (organizational level), must evaluate whether these are compatible with the values of work groups and the people who comprise them. Inconsistencies between the levels (individual, group and organizational), will translate into undesirable behaviors, which do not favor the speed and precision with which knowledge flows and is integrated into the different dependencies of an Entity.
Knowledge, as it appears in the model, is owned by agents: individual, group and organization. The information, when transformed by the human filter, ceases to be cold and objective and becomes knowledge dependent on the interpretation that these agents make of it.
Not knowing this fact can lead to organizational schizophrenia. That is, living simultaneously in two worlds as if they were one and identical. On the one hand, the theoretical, built based on the policies, standards, processes, procedures and in general everything associated with the "should be" of the organization and on the other hand the applied, that is, the world built based on perceptions (interpretations) that individuals make about this theoretical world, their motivations towards it and their permanent modifications of said interpretations, as a result of the interaction with other agents in the organization and outside it.
Knowledge is built on interaction with others. The creation of networks of people and the strengthening of links to facilitate the sharing of knowledge are processes that can be managed in a more fluid and productive way when the what and how of human capital is known.
Future articles will analyze the influence of each of the variables of the model presented in knowledge management.
Bibliography:
Hall B. (2001). Keys to Embarking on Electronic Learning. Management, Volume 4 No 5, 2001.
Nonaka, I. (2000) The Knowledge Creator Company. In: Knowledge Management. Harvard Business Review. Edic Deusto, Bilbao.
Portela, P. (2001) Knowledge Management in the Value Economy. www.gestiondelconocimiento.com.
Robbins, S. (1999) Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, Mexico.
