The Knowing Nation: A Framework for Public Policy in a Post-industrial Knowledge Economy

Rooney, D, & Mandeville, T., (1998), Prometheus, 16(4) pp. 453-467.

Bullet Express MIM Study Group (Pennie, Helen, Vijay, Torrance, Ian).

Audience: Academics, policy Analysts, Knowledge Management professionals

Theme: As countries enter the knowledge-based global economy, it is important to have a policy framework not based on neoclassical economic theory (only having tangible assets as factors of production), but one where intangible assets (primarily knowledge) are also considered factors of production. However, additional polices are not recommended – it is preferable to filter existing policies through a “knowledge-policy matrix”, so appropriate, “knowledge friendly” amendments can be made.

Summary:

With the increasing reliance of a countries competitive advantage on effective knowledge management, it is essential that policy is put in place for the development and utilization of intangible knowledge assets. However, given the fact that knowledge is context dependent (and a multitude of contexts can be applied to any given 'item' of knowledge), it is difficult to devise specific policy that can be applied to all contexts. For this reason, knowledge policy frameworks are useful, whereby existing policies are influenced by the identified national knowledge imperative.

The following points capture some of the key ideas in this paper:

• Knowledge is a key intangible asset.
• Key Question: how do nations develop knowledge policy initiatives that span their economies coherently and efficiently?
• Policy imperatives should require openness and a capacity to learn from the external environment.
• This requires nations to be receptive to knowledge, networked to foster knowledge flow, and be able to process codified knowledge (this requires a pre-existing critical mass of tacit knowledge be present in the economy).
• Separate knowledge policies are counterproductive; they risk de-contextualizing the knowledge - reducing its value.
• Authors present knowledge as a socio-epistemological system - i.e. one in which knowledge can be interpreted differently by different people, or by the same person in different contexts.
• They present a non-reductionist perspective on the context of knowledge, which they use to drive a policy framework which promotes a dynamic, self-organizing form of knowledge management.
• Non-reductionist - i.e. the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
• The difference between a firm's book value and its market value is a proxy for its intellectual capital. This concept scales up to the level of economies.
• Intellectual assets exist in 3 usage domains:

1. External - competitors / collaborators / communities / networks. The ability to learn from external sources is profound. It is vital that this is capitalized on.
2. Internal - regulatory framework, government/bureaucracy, infrastructure, etc. The key is that a coherent knowledge policy framework is put in place.
3. Competence of personnel. People, people, people….the people aspect of economies can no longer be ignored. People must be utilized to their full potential, to achieve true competitive advantage.

Review:

I found the article interesting and balanced. It was a little hard going at times (socio-epistemological??) but well worth the effort. The authors acknowledged the scope for debate with what they propose, and that room for refinement exists. I internally applauded when they suggested that their ideas put less emphasis on "best practice". Rooney's ideas seem more pragmatic than some, which from a practitioner perspective is refreshing.