Often, simplified cultural explanations of a nation‟s economy are common sense and taken for granted. Amidst the debate about the propensity of European countries to compete with other prosperous knowledge economies, some consultants in The Netherlands postulate that the Dutch will never be able to match the requirements of the new economy because of their „polder-model‟, a term used for the Dutch model of gaining consensus in which employers, syndicates and the government meet with each other to make agreements about labour. This postulation was made against the general opinion of some years ago, when this same polder-model was perceived as the main cause of the economic success of the Dutch in the 1990s: “Consensus lies at the heart of the Dutch success where unemployment has been cut to half (2% in 2000) of what it was in 1997. The government, with support of employers and unions, has cut public spending as a share of GDP from 60 to 50%. It is the combination of a quiet and flexible labour market with a solid monetary and fiscal policy and introducing more dynamic markets which is the core of the polder model.”
DOCUMENT
In the knowledge economy knowledge productivity is the main source of competitive advantage and thus the biggest management challenge. Based on a review of the concept from two distinct perspectives, knowledge productivity is defined as the process of knowledge-creation that leads to incremental and radical innovation. The two main elements in this definition are „the process of knowledge creation‟ and „incremental and radical innovation‟. The main aim of this chapter is to contribute to a better understanding of the concept of knowledge productivity in order to support management in designing policies for knowledge productivity enhancement. After elaborating on the concept of knowledge productivity, the two main elements are combined in a conceptual framework – the knowledge productivity flywheel. This framework appeared to be an effective model for supporting initiatives that aim for enhancing knowledge productivity.
DOCUMENT
Metaphors are at the basis of our understanding of reality. Using the theory of metaphor developed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999) this paper analyses common metaphors used in the intellectual capital and knowledge management literatures. An analysis of key works by Davenport & Prusak (2000), Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), and Stewart (1991) suggests that at least 95 percent of all statements about either knowledge or intellectual capital are based on metaphors. The paper analyses the two metaphors that form the basis for the concept of intellectual capital: ‘Knowledge as a Resource’ and ‘Knowledge as Capital’, both of which derive their foundations from the industrial age. The paper goes into some of the implications of these findings for the theory and practice of intellectual capital. Common metaphors used in conceptualising abstract phenomena in traditional management practices unconsciously reinforce the established social order. The paper concludes by asking whether we need new metaphors to better understand the mechanisms of the knowledge economy, hence allowing us to potentially change some of the more negative structural features of contemporary society.
DOCUMENT
