Work Process Knowledge

Today's posting summarizes an article by Boreham (in the same edited book) entitled:
"The Knowledge Economy, Work Process Knowledge and the Learning Citizen:  Central but Vulnerable"

I found the concept of Work Process Knowledge (WPK) interesting and it is helping me to theorize my way around a problem that I've been having with discourse on the KBE.  But THAT will be the subject of another post...perhaps tomorrow.  Today, I just summarize Boreham's chapter.

 Boreham starts with a broad summary of European KBE/LLL policy context:

• Oecd argues that the global economy is driven by increased codification of knowledge and its transmission (1996).  

•  Lundvall (2001) argues that what really matters in a learning economy is creating new knowledge and forgetting the old.
•    Learning is the new work

• European Commission (1997) argue a “need for more flexible organization of work in a way which fulfils both the wishes of employees and the requirements of competition” p. 3 (p. 130 in Boreham)

• Boreham argues that the kind of organization envisioned by the EC for the KBE tend toward the "learning organization" (see Senge, 1990) 
•  Many are replacing bureaucracy with flexibility; reducing vertical/horizontal demarcations; creating functional business units; delegating authority to teams. 

• Policy makers in the EU are relying heavily on two concepts: 
• tacit knowledge (that which is embedded in practice and hard to articulate)
• presented in binary contrast to codified or explicit knowledge
• it is assumed that knowledge is either tacit or codified
• it is assumed that tacit knowledge is really what is important in competition
• tacit knowing is hard to plan into vocational curricula
• linked to belief that  tacit knowledge can be “mined, extracted, translated into codified knowledge and distributed throughout the organization."
• know how 
• presented in binary contrast to "know that"
• less reference than to tacit knowledge

•  Boreham  encourages the recognition that tacit/codified and know how/know that are false dichotomies.
• ·         “...’knowing’ is a unitary process which involves both tacit and codified knowledge, which interact in ultimately inseparable ways” (p. 131) (see Boreham, 1992, 1994). 

Boreham positions work process knowledge as " an alternative way of conceptualizing work-related knowledge is needed which integrates the tacit with the codified and the how with the that”. (p. 131).

 Work Process Knowledge (WPK) is characterized by 4 attributes:

1. Systems-level understanding of work processes.  This stands in contrast to Taylorist visions of knowledge in work where individuals have the minimum amount of knowledge they need to do the job.  WPK is a broader understanding that includes theoretical and practical understandings of the system as a whole and one's specific job in relation. 
2. It is "active" knowledge in that is it used in the performance of work. Thus, what counts as WPK depends on the nature of the work. 
3. It is constructed during and embedded in work processes.  Often WPK is constructed during problem solving .  It is dynamic. 
4. It is a holistic knowledge synthesizing different ways of knowing available to the individual.  Boreham is specifically suggesting tacit AND codified knowledge as well as know how and know that.  However, I would add that it also involves other "ways of knowing" such as that associated with emotion, embodied knowing etc. 

 Boreham goes on to provide examples of how WPK is related to Total Quality Management, Socio-technical systems, supervision in dynamic self-regulating environments, integrating academic and work experiences, and graduate employability.  I won't go into much detail here, but the key idea is that in each of these situations, judgement is improved and innovation is facilitated when individuals have a broader understanding of the system and can draw from a variety of ways of knowing about that system.

In what seems like a little bit of a break and jump from the explanation of WPK, Boreham then describes the importance of the individual and his or her autonomy in the work setting.  He argues that a WPK construction of knowledge does not deny individual autonomy, particularly if one considers a notion of self that is more relational than individually contained and isolated.  But he does admit that it positions the individual as vulnerable.  WPK presents a potential conflict for the individual:  On the one hand, he or she can advance the team and the organization by sharing all of his or her knowledge.  On the other hand, by doing so, he or she risks losing some of the knowledge that makes him or her unique and valuable, thereby threatening their personal employment interests.  Boreham suggests that this conflict is very real for many work contexts across Europe.

In another posting soon, I will further explore how the concept of WPK is helping me to envision a way of theorizing about work that will leave me scratching my head less often.  But first, I have to think it through a bit more.  And tomorrow is my birthday, so I'm going to go easy on myself tonight, and relax.