Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Ruxandra Bejinaru and Stefan Iordache
information lead to <strong>the</strong> vision that management <strong>of</strong> knowledge might be <strong>the</strong> fundamental issue
supporting an organization’s activity. And this doesn’t mean that information is knowledge. Deming
(1994) accurately argued that “in o<strong>the</strong>r words, regardless <strong>of</strong> how complete and fast it is, it doesn’t
represent knowledge. Only when information achieves to be understood and assimilated, <strong>the</strong>n it
transforms into knowledge”.
Explicit knowledge was defined by Anne Brooking (1991), a specialist in <strong>the</strong> leadership domain, as
“<strong>the</strong> knowledge that a person can provide to ano<strong>the</strong>r person in order to be verified. This could mean
that <strong>the</strong>y can be explained through speaking, but is generally preferred to be codified, in writing.” In
business administration, many have seen <strong>the</strong> knowledge management as resuming to <strong>the</strong> explicit
knowledge. This point <strong>of</strong> view is limited and we try to expand it by bringing into discussion <strong>the</strong>
knowledge dynamics.
Tacit knowledge implies <strong>the</strong> human understanding and individual knowledge. Tacit knowledge hides
within persons and is mainly acquired experientially. Huang, Lee and Wang (2001) state: “<strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong>
such experiences allows society to transform <strong>the</strong>se into structured knowledge more throughout
analysis and feedback”. Tacit knowledge is <strong>of</strong>ten very personal and difficult to catch, but <strong>the</strong>y may
have a greater value potential. There doesn’t seem to be a secure way to efficiently undertake <strong>the</strong>
transfer <strong>of</strong> tacit knowledge. But it is important to create an environment that supports knowledge
dynamics. The more opportunities, instruments and contexts we create for knowledge sharing, <strong>the</strong>
more possible is to succeed in transferring <strong>the</strong> tacit knowledge. Within <strong>the</strong> learning organization, tacit
knowledge exists inside <strong>the</strong> individuals and inside <strong>the</strong> group. There is no way to <strong>the</strong>oretically
differentiate <strong>the</strong>m, but <strong>the</strong> difference is seen through effects, through practice.
3. Channelling <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital
Intellectual capital comprises both human capital and structural capital for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> using <strong>the</strong>ir
synergy in order to increase <strong>the</strong> organization’s growth. The company’s value depends and also
comprises <strong>the</strong> entire value <strong>of</strong> workers, toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> company structure. Actually “<strong>the</strong> intellectual
capital develops <strong>the</strong> company values and optimizes <strong>the</strong> company business operations” -Davenport
(1996). Intellectual capital implies human resources, information technology, business strategy and
employees participation in order to rapidly transfer <strong>the</strong> imperative experiences across <strong>the</strong> company.
For individuals to share knowledge within <strong>the</strong> company, <strong>the</strong> management has to facilitate <strong>the</strong>
dynamics <strong>of</strong> knowledge among employees, enabling <strong>the</strong>m to become knowledge workers. The
company has to put at disposal <strong>of</strong> members <strong>the</strong> available information, to provide communication and
to train everyone to use <strong>the</strong> information and technology <strong>the</strong> company possesses. (Hunter, 2002)
Discussing <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital dynamics means to have an integrative view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> following
aspects. Competences include knowledge and practical abilities on which <strong>the</strong>y base. The attitude
refers to <strong>the</strong> employee volition <strong>of</strong> using his/her knowledge and abilities to serve <strong>the</strong> organization’s
interest and he/she may be influenced by motivation and behaviour. Intelligence refers to <strong>the</strong>
employee’s capacity to use knowledge and abilities in various contexts and in order to increase
knowledge and competences throughout learning. Relating capacity represents <strong>the</strong> individual ability to
establish relations with o<strong>the</strong>rs -clients, suppliers, business partners and o<strong>the</strong>r stakeholders. The
innovation and development rate comprises <strong>the</strong> intangible aspects that may improve <strong>the</strong> intellectual
capital, all <strong>the</strong> ‘elements’ that were built or conceived and that will have an impact upon <strong>the</strong> future
value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization’s intellectual capital, but that didn’t proved <strong>the</strong>ir impact yet.
Koeing, U. and Memhill, A. (2004) observed that, communication should be maximised within <strong>the</strong>
organization. The most important factor in order to have a successful organization is to install within
<strong>the</strong> organization an excellent communication system with <strong>the</strong> purpose to deliver its members <strong>the</strong>
necessary information that <strong>the</strong>y might use to accomplish <strong>the</strong> production requirements. Kaplan and
Norton (1996) had a different view and mentioned that individual non-performance and lack <strong>of</strong> ideas
can’t be always guilt <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization’s members. The organization’s structure may influence <strong>the</strong>
unsatisfactory behaviour <strong>of</strong> employees and <strong>the</strong> low results.
Building <strong>the</strong> intellectual capital best shape is <strong>the</strong> learning organization’s business while <strong>of</strong>fering <strong>the</strong>
best <strong>of</strong> knowledge is <strong>the</strong> employees business. And we agree to this because <strong>the</strong>re are fundamental
differences between <strong>the</strong> organizational and individual knowledge. The nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization is to
manage valuable knowledge only for itself and <strong>the</strong> individuals inside. The individuals’ nature is to
adapt <strong>the</strong>ir work –<strong>of</strong> creating knowledge –to <strong>the</strong> organization’s requirements and also resources.
72