Y Curious - Knowledge Management Between The Generations

[Year]
Y Curious
Knowledge Management between the Generations
Newell Hampson-Jones
Y Curious: Knowledge Management between the Generations Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................2 2.0 Literature Review..................................................................................................................................................4 3.0 Research Methodology .......................................................................................................................................6 4.0 Knowledge Management and the Generations Defined .............................................................................9 4.1 Knowledge Management...............................................................................................................................9 4.1.1 The Theories behind Knowledge Management .................................................................................9 4.1.2 Knowledge Management in Practice................................................................................................ 11 4.1.3 The Learning Organisation ................................................................................................................. 12 4.2 Defining the Generations ............................................................................................................................ 15 4.2.1 Who are the Generations?................................................................................................................. 15 4.2.2 What Challenges does Generation Integration Present?............................................................. 16 5.0 Higher Education ............................................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 The Benefits of Higher Education............................................................................................................... 19 5.2 Proposed changes to the Higher Education sector................................................................................. 21 5.2.1 The Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance .......................... 21 5.3.2 Current government proposals........................................................................................................... 25 6.0 Standardisation ................................................................................................................................................. 28 6.1 How Standards are defined ...................................................................................................................... 28 6.2 Compliance with standards......................................................................................................................... 30 6.3 The Benefits of Standardisation and Compliance.................................................................................. 31 7.0 Recommendations for Knowledge Management between Generations................................................ 36 7.1 Generational Knowledge Framework...................................................................................................... 37 7.2 Organisational Knowledge Committees .................................................................................................. 39 8.0 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................................... 42 Bibliography.............................................................................................................................................................. 61 Appendix A The Higher Education Structure in England ............................................................................... 44 Appendix B The role of mission groups in higher education ........................................................................ 47 Appendix C Standardisation in Historical Context ........................................................................................ 57 Appendix D Categories of British, European and International Standards .............................................. 59
Front cover image: (Bejar, 2011)
1.0 Introduction
The last 40 years have been shaped by disruptive generational transition; as Baby Boomers are replaced by a rebellious Generation X who are now seeing the technology rooted Generation Y enter the workplace with Generation Z to follow in coming years. With the workforce in what feels like a constant state of flux, surely there is a need to ensure that the knowledge and experiences of the generations leaving the labour force is not lost? Anthropologist, Elizabeth Lindsey understands the need for maintaining the knowledge of previous generations, saying, When an elder dies, a library is burned. (Lindsey, 2011) Lindseys suggestion appears to agree that we need to manage how knowledge is passed between generations and how the generations could work together to create further knowledge. This will enable societies, economies and organisations to continue progressing and improving, without fear of haemorrhaging valuable knowledge. My previous work felt that knowledge management would become a vital tool for Generation Y and become ingrained into practice, almost to a cultural level: In the hands of the new generation, Knowledge Management as a concept or theory may subside but not because it is irrelevant. I believe we will see the value of Knowledge Management thrive and integrate itself so closely to Generation Ys lifestyle that it will become a part of mainstream culture. Knowledge Management has no danger of being discredited by the latest generation, we have only seen signs of embracing the concept and helping it grow and reach it potential. It is becoming too big to be defined by business and economy alone and I believe that Knowledge Management is on its way to becoming a staple part of the sociological make-up of Generation Y. (Hampson-Jones, 2009) I still agree that knowledge management has a subversive presence in Generation Ys business thinking; however I also believe the role of knowledge management when looking between generations has far greater impact and could enable that presence to become more overt and structured. The impacts a generation focused knowledge management structure could have are vast. Insuring that the same mistakes made by previous generations are prevented to increase the speed and reliability of innovation and evolution and, on an organisational scale, having generational transition knowledge management strategies can ensure the organisations processes and policies are always of the highest possible quality. In order to investigate what strategies and tools can effect generational knowledge management, this study will explore knowledge management strategies and generational transition, focusing specifically on the roles higher education and standardisation play to organisations and economies. I feel that as the subject of generational knowledge management is so vast, this sort of focus can ensure the recommendations made are much more proactive and can make a practical difference to organisations. I also believed at the conception of this project, that the knowledge management traits of both areas are similar. They perform knowledge creation roles in different areas of the economy and finding a structure where the two feed into each other and indirectly collaborate could improve the performance of both and assist organisations and the wider economy. Newell Hampson-Jones
With the scope of the study set, three objectives have subsequently been established against which, success of the research can be measured: Explore knowledge management theories and frameworks available to and used by governments and organisations. Analyse higher educations role within the context of it being a possible component of an economic knowledge management strategy, making appropriate recommendations Examine the role of standardisation within the same knowledge management context, exploring how it could affect economic and organisational strategies, also making recommendations
I hope these objectives will be met by first exploring knowledge management theory and defining the generations and their trait before exploring the role higher education plays on the economy. Specific discussion will fall on the benefits and funding structures of the sector, with the exploration of the sector will be grounded with knowledge management perspective. This will be followed by an analysis of the role standardisation plays within the economy. Particular attention will be drawn to the definition of standards, the processes that enable their publication and tools of compliance. The discussion will end on the benefits of standardisation and compliance to organisations and the economy and the relationship between standardisation and knowledge management theory. I feel the analyses set out above will create suitable grounding for the recommendations, which are made in the hope they have potential to be, to some extent, practically applied within organisations and possibly within government policy. I also believe that the recommendations that come as a result of these analyses can be measured against the objectives above and judged on their ability to meet those objectives. It is my overall hope that this study will show how trans-generational knowledge management can affect the economy and organisational performance and detail knowledge management strategies and tools which can bring benefits to both.
2.0 Literature Review

Knowledge management research has, for the most part, been focused on how it can be a driver for organizations wishing to create a competitive advantage. One definition considered most authoritative (Davenport & Prusak, 2000) believed that data must be contextualised to become information and the contextualisation process requires institutional knowledge. (Drucker, 1988) Taking cues from successful Japanese companies, the process of creating such knowledge is examined in a study which defines the creation process in to four methods (Nonaka, 1991). This study has been influential in further studies afterwards, credited with its importance in understanding the nature of knowledge and fuelling further study in to the identification, analysis and utilisation of knowledge (Davenport & Prusak, 2000) and criticism of the over-emphasis on information technology and management over knowledge management (Senge, 1990), (Davenport & Prusak, 2000). Other researchers have explored the importance of learning to the organisation. One influential study considered learning from experience a delusional myth, due to a number of factors that include the impact to learning horizons of employee turnover and the complex consequences decisions and actions could have outside of the view of the employee (Senge, 1990). However, this channel of research conflicts with other research into organisational learning, including one study which goes as far as to criticise previous scholars work for being confusing with vague, unclear and ideological, but no plan of action. (Garvin, 1993) This looked instead at the foundations of problem solving through learning and defined a structure for managing and measuring organisational learning. This has been explored further in later research, specifically focusing on the importance of experience to the learning organisation and learning histories (Kleiner & Roth, 1997). Despite a wealth of research into knowledge management, the most popular research, in my opinion is quite myopic. Focusing purely on the organization when there is a wealth of more holistic approaches to take, looking at the sociological impact of knowledge management and cascading that understanding down to organisational learning behaviour. The most societal minded research I have discovered has all come from one source, which happens to be the most philosophically minded of researchers. This research looks outside of business and establishes knowledge management as a social paradigm (Drucker, 1993). Whilst a previous study from the same source established knowledge management as a tool for organisational competitive advantage (Drucker, 1988), this later research is a progression of that study taking a route that I feel has been overlooked by others, linking the practice to the economy as a whole. This study explores knowledge management within reference to the transitions and divides of generations, specifically exploring Generation Ys impact. There appears to be an amount of confusion as to the definition of Generation Y in the research I have found. Whilst the Baby Boomers & Generation X have relatively clear definitions (Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line, 2008) the confusion in the range of Generation Y is best shown by two conflicting reports, released within the same month by the same organisational body but from two research teams. One report believed Generation Y was born between 1979 and 1991 (Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line, 2008) whilst the other research team pushed the date back to 1980, without a cut-off date. (Burkinshaw & Pass, 2008). It is intriguing to see that although there are subtle referrals (Burkinshaw & Pass, 2008), (Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line, 2008), little of this research touches on the importance of knowledge management between the generations. A further case study (Erickson, 2009) looks specifically at Generation Ys integration in to the workplace and the conflicts it may cause, however I still feel there is woefully little referral to knowledge management strategies, merely an understanding of the need for management of generational knowledge, but no recommendations. It is clear then, that Newell Hampson-Jones
there is a gap for research in to knowledge management paradigms looking in to this issue, which I hope this research will begin to address. One area of exploration for this study is the relevance of higher education to the knowledge management debate. Higher Education research mainly focuses on definition or impact of the sector, however one particular piece of research explores the Canadian higher education systems importance to knowledge management, looking specifically at the dynamics of social and market knowledge. (Buchbinder, The Market Oriented University and the Changing Role of Knowledge, 1993)This research appears to, whilst not referring directly, integrate the work of one seminal piece of research which defined the role of education. This study explored education in the societal context (Dewey, 2007), paying specific attention to the understanding of knowledge in that contemporary environment and the relevance education had to these theories. Interestingly, this study pre-dates knowledge management as defined in prominent business research (Drucker, 1988); (Drucker, 1993); (Nonaka, 1991) but appears to have linking concepts organically integrated in to the study to deliver a strong understanding of the interactions between education and knowledge management. This research also compliments and adds to a range of studies which explore the role of universities in the context of the knowledge economy (Altbach, 1987); (Buchbinder & Newson, 1991); As well as this research that specifically links to the area of focus in this work, there is a wealth of research recently conducted which has connections to Buchbinders work, looking at the impact of marketization in the UK higher education system. (Scullion, Molesworth, & Nixon, 2011); (Nordensvrd, 2011); (Barnett, 2011). In addition, there is a plethora of factual data research which has use in being applied in the context of knowledge management and generational transfer. Whilst I strongly disagree with some of the data analysis in these reports for its lack of understanding the importance of knowledge (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1999), the related data and information provide an excellent foundation for contextualisation (Universities UK, 2010). Research relating to standardisation, the other focus in this study, seems quite dislocated from traditional business-focused academic research. There are a number of corporate documents which can give qualitative information regarding the interests and drivers of standardisation bodies (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2011) as well as information on the relationship to the economy from those bodies perspective (European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2010). Factual data is also available detailing the role of the UKs national standards body, as defined by the UK government (Department of Trade and Industry, 2002). The subject is also the focus of an academic study which focuses on information technology but with a wider exploration of government policy. (Fomin, Pedersen, & de Vries, 2008). Interestingly, a bulk of academic research for standardisation found appears to focus primarily on the electro technical or information technology sector (Blind, 2006); (Fomin, Pedersen, & de Vries, 2008). This implies that the subject, in relation to business practice, has not been explored with much breadth. The business focused research that is available, however, shows the value of standardisation, not only as an economic benefit (Swann, 2010); (Swann, Temple, & Shurmer, Standards and Trade Performance: The UK Experience, 1996) but as a strategic tool, with participation becoming a specific positive aspect to a companys knowledge management strategy (Yajizi, 2006); (de Vries H. , 2006). One study explores standardisation in relation to entrepreneurism (Krechmer, 2006), however this is also within the framing of electro-technical research, so makes no mention of standards like BS 25999 Business Continuity Management, which was in development at the time of the study. I can only conclude that whilst there is research on standardisation, it is quite polarized with specific studies looking at key areas or studies of those areas which briefly include standardisation. It appears that the majority of this research is market driven but for a few examples (Swann, 2010), one of which is a study exploring the benefits of standardisation education to the economy and to society (de Vries H. J., Newell Hampson-Jones
2002). This created a powerful model which has been the driving force behind a number of practical initiatives, most importantly, the formation of a European Working Group on the subject, proving that research providing social knowledge can have a deep, positive impact on the market.
3.0 Research Methodology

To construct the design for my research, I opted to use Saunders, Lewis & Thornhills research onion, detailed below. This guide helped me construct what I felt was an apt structure for my personal research preferences, looking at philosophy, methods and time horizons in specific detail to create what I feel is a rounded methodology for me.
Figure 1 - The research 'onion' (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009)
The first step as defined by the research onion above is to understand what philosophy to take. Its possibly more accurate to understand the philosophy of the researcher, rather than imply the research itself has a philosophy and I feel I have usually held an interpretivist philosophy when researching. I believe that business strategy cannot be simply defined to set structures; were that the case, then every business would be able to succeed by following a set number of steps. I do agree that frameworks and structures can guide, assist and even enhance businesses, but theres always an indefinable element which decides whether a business is successful or not and that exists within the human factors of that business. I believe this philosophy is one which works very well with knowledge management concepts as people will interpret and digest information to create their own tacit knowledge. It would be difficult to accurately present information and define exactly what subjective views will be taken from it; they are shaped by how the person in question deconstructs and comprehends the world around it. I feel it is best to present and understand a range of meanings, which can be then translated to theorise how a subject could react and what actions may stem from that. Most importantly, this philosophy establishes that all research is fallible to perspective. Where I have interpreted the information found, Newell Hampson-Jones
a different researcher may come to starkly different conclusions. I dont believe this can damage the credibility of any research, it can only enhance it, spurring on the need for further research to support both perspectives; encouraging innovation. I dont believe there are many research projects that have looked at generational transition from a knowledge management perspective and of those that have; I would not expect any to have specifically looked at the relevance of higher education and standardisation within this context. This study, therefore, is an exploratory one. The purpose of an exploratory study is to find further understanding of a situation; asking questions and assessing it from a new perspective. This was always the driving force of the study, trying to create a new perception of knowledge management. I felt that one criticism of knowledge management as an academic genre has been that it is, in many ways, unquantifiable. Knowledge cannot be measured and I couldnt feel a practical root in much of the grounding theory of knowledge management. For this reason I decided to propose a problem-the issue of retaining an managing knowledge as generations enter and leave the workplace-and explore the possibility that there are possible tools and solutions to that problem already existing; in this case higher education and standardisation. Building a theory around these parameters required an inductive approach. Whereas deduction requires a hypothesis to be proven or disproven, the exploratory nature of this project means there can be no hypothesis based on proving or disproving previous theory. In fact, any hypothesis would be rootless and, in my opinion, as effective as plucking a random thought from the sky. I think this a natural choice considering Ive chosen an interpretivist theory as one begets the other; theories are built through the interpretation of the evidence collected. This then creates a need for further research to disprove or support the theories and recommendations proposed. I have to admit that choosing these sectors to focus on was motivated more by the ability to incorporate my employment in to the study than anything else. I felt this gave me an advantage in some ways; I was able to devote more time in understanding the issues of each sector. This led to strategy which relied on archival research over any other. This allowed me to focus on already existing theories and interpret them under these new parameters. The scope of research found was wider than I had anticipated in the proposal, where I thought there may be scope for expert interviews and surveys. The amount of research found influenced my decision to commit resources towards building the theory from these sources alone. I do concede that some may the view that primary evidence would strengthen this research. I would, however, contend that as I am approaching this research from a new perspective, with an inductive approach the theories built in this project need to have a strong foundation in the evidence provided through archival research. If they cannot stand up to that scrutiny then I do not see how they could with any other research strategy. Furthermore, establishing these theories and recommendations has established need for further study, but more importantly, this study can take a deductive approach to prove or disprove the wider theories presented in this project. With the approach and strategy decided on, its clear that a mono method has been chosen, for reasons that match the above. My proposal stated that I would choose to create a multi-method study but, as stated above, a lack of resource-mainly time resource-meant that focusing on the creating the exploratory theory took priority over later testing that theory. Were the opportunity to present itself, I would like to do that research and discover how these theories stand up against practical scrutiny. The decision to stick with a mono-method, archival research study did present an opportunity to make this a longitudinal study. My proposal stated that I wished to keep the project cross-sectional and only examine the current situation, building theory from those conditions. I decided to continue with that mainly due to the fact that higher education is in a unique period of transition, meaning the discussion of current practice and proposals produced far more research that I anticipated in the proposal. I did Newell Hampson-Jones
consider adding a longitudinal dimension to the study, most notably by comparing the Dearing and Robbins reports to the Brown review but I was concerned that this would make the research too broad and lose the practical focus that I wanted to ensure was present throughout. Again, I would welcome the opportunity for a similar study to explore these theories and issues from a longitudinal perspective as I would be interested in whether such a study would support the findings of this project. In my proposal I hoped the methodology outlined would provide what I termed then as a credible and strong research project. Credibility is difficult to absolutely define, however my intention was to produce work that would inspire further study and, if that further research were to occur, for this project to stand up to the scrutiny I would expect from subsequent research. I believe that this has been done. I am confident in the recommendations made and feel that the more pertinent proposals and could bring long term benefits. Whilst it could be argued that there may be flaws in the methodology, namely the lack of primary research, I feel the exploratory nature of this project, my preference as a researcher to use an interpretivist philosophy and the results brought from both justify the decisions that were made.
4.0 Knowledge Management and the Generations Defined

Central to this study is the role of knowledge management, but how is knowledge management defined and what effects can it have on a business or an economy? Over the course of this chapter, I shall explore previous knowledge management theory in depth, which will provide the grounding for both this study and the recommendations arising from this research. Of particular interest is the building of practical knowledge management models and the tools used by organisations to manage their knowledge as well as the knowledge economy as a concept, all of which have a strong influence on the recommendations made later. The second half of this chapter is devoted to how the generations have been defined, the challenges of generational transition and will explore any relationship between knowledge management and the generations. The objective of this chapter is to present the foundation theories that will shape the course of this investigation and influence the recommendations brought as a result of the study.
4.1 Knowledge Management

4.1.1 The Theories behind Knowledge Management Drucker was arguably one of the first academics to introduce knowledge management theory, when he said, To remain competitive-maybe even to survive-[most businesses] will have to convert themselves into information-based organizations, and fairly quickly. They will have to change old habits and acquire new ones. And the more successful a company has been, the more difficult and painful this process is apt to be. (Drucker, 1988) Druckers work appears to have been written with the intention of being revolutionary, however it also appears to be evoking the zeitgeist, judging by research of the time that followed. Noticing the importance of a computerised workforce, Drucker was sounding a warning that the future would be dictated be a de-industrialisation of society and an intellectualisation of industry, widening the effects of knowledge and exponentially increasing the importance and benefits to a company that understands the role knowledge plays within in. This would in turn create the knowledge economy. The migration to the knowledge economy is considered by Drucker to have begun within America as post-WWII de-industrialisation saw the labour market forced away from blue collar jobs and herded towards information focused white collar roles. These jobs required the labour force to transfer their skills and become, as Drucker terms it, knowledge workers Knowledge workers are college educated and adept at dealing with intangibles, using data, information and knowledge empower themselves enough to make educated decisions as opposed to performing rote tasks. The knowledge worker also started exhibiting traits that became more virulent as the knowledge economy rose. These workers did not believe that to become a good manager they needed to work through the labour roles and up the organisational ranks. Instead, the knowledge workers preferred to educate themselves to increase the speed of their rise to management-in some cases moving in to management immediately after furthering their education. This impression of advanced mobility is proposed by Druckers belief that the root of the knowledge economy can be found in those post-WWII years, where he declares,
10
One possible factor may have been the GI Bill of Rights after World War II, which by offering a college education to every returning American veteran established advanced education as the norm and everything less as substandard. (Drucker, 2007) It was Druckers belief that the shift towards the knowledge economy had completed by 1990; however one could argue against this theory by referring back to Senge as well as Devenport and Prusak who refer to the continuous evolution of knowledge. In fact, keeping that in mind, I would go further to argue that the shift to a knowledge economy could never be truly complete due to the need for economies to be diversified to mitigate the risk of economic failure. An example of where such failure due to a lack of economic diversification could be seen in the global banking crisis of recent years. It could be said that these crisis stemmed from an over reliance on the knowledge economy and lack of industrial diversification; that a balance between the two aspects need to exist for economies to survive. This line of thinking doesnt perfectly match Druckers thoughts in the Post-Capitalist Society; however one can arguably see parallels in the make-up of the economies affected by the banking crash to Druckers work. Whilst Drucker was highly influential in knowledge managements conception as a concept, it was other academics that would create the tools and structures for the process to thrive. Nonakas influence came in taking Druckers ideals and theories and applying them to real world practices, creating definitions of knowledge and identifying practices of management of that knowledge in the real world. Nonaka decried the Western management structures and their approach to information, saying, Deeply ingrained in the traditions of Western management, from Frederick Taylor to Herbert Simon, is a view from the organization as a machine for information processing. According to this view, the only useful knowledge is formal and systematic-hard (read: quantifiable) data, codified procedures, universal principles. And the key metrics for measuring the value of new knowledge are simply hard and quantifiable-increased efficiency, lower costs, improved return on investment. (Nonaka, 1991) Nonakas preference was for companies to transform their cultures in to being more like their Japanese counterparts who, he believes, are much more understanding of the organic nature of innovation. Nonaka believed that the Japanese approach was concerned more with the creation of knowledge rather than the processing of information. These company cultures understood the importance of adding contextualisation to information gathered to create knowledge; subjectivity and instinct and insight play just as important a role in innovation as data. Nonaka went on to use this approach to define knowledge in detail with the example of Ikuko Tanaka, declaring that, Explicit knowledge is formal and systematic. For this reason, it can be easily communicated and shared, in product specifications or a scientific formula or a computer program. But the starting point of Tanakas innovation is another kind of knowledge that is not so easily expressible: tacit knowledge, like that possessed by the chief baker at the Osaka International Hotel. Tacit knowledge is highly personal. It is hard to formalize and, therefore, difficult to communicate to others. (Nonaka, 1991)
11
The example referred to by Nonaka is the creation of a bread making machine by Muatsushita Electrical Company, of whom Tanaka was an employee. Using science and explicit knowledge, like xray techniques, the company was unable to understand why the bread maker could not produce cooked through bread-the specific issue being within the kneading of the dough. It was only when Tanaka observed the process that she realised there was a specific technique that the Hotels baker had mastered over years of experience. Rather than using explicit knowledge to create a theory and put that theory in practice. The baker had experimented, using various threads of legacy knowledge, personal experience and-most importantly-trial and error. The difficulty was in understanding and translating this knowledge to make it useful. It is this process of translation which is key. Nonaka sets out a model to define how he feels knowledge can be created and transformed between the categories, a set out below:
Tacit to Tacit
Observing, imitating and practicing under the mentorship of an employee. Also known as socialization.
Tacit to Explicit
Using data from around the company and applying personal tacit knowledge to create a new source of knowledge. Also known as externalization.
Explicit to Tacit
Absorption of a new source of knowledge in to personal process, converting the knowledge in to tacit knowledge. Also known as internalization.
Explicit to Explicit
Collating data from different sources to create a new knowledge source. Also known as combination.
Figure 2 - Nonaka's model of knowledge transfer (Adapted from Nonaka 1991)
The management of knowledge can be mapped to this model to evaluate and improve effectiveness. Combination could appear by many to be the most achievable aim and many may look to shift strategy accordingly; however that would be an incorrect assessment of how this model can be implemented in a practical environment. Knowledge transfer and creation must be balanced between all stages, to harness and nurture innovation. This means that knowledge management frameworks will need to make reference and integrate all four processes. 4.1.2 Knowledge Management in Practice So how can Nonakas model be integrated in to knowledge projects effectively? There is difficulty in doing this due to the base conceptual nature of the knowledge management philosophy, as Davenport and Prusak explain, Knowledge management is an evolving practice. Even the most developed and mature knowledge management projects we studied were unfinished works in progress. Most of their managers, however, were able to articulate specific business and knowledge management objectives, some had already achieved some of their goals. (Davenport & Prusak, 2000) Knowledge is a continuously moving concept as once it is mastered, more knowledge is discovered and new lines of enquiry presented. I believe this could appear to imply a generational influence on knowledge creation. Davenport and Prusak acknowledge this when they examine the various Newell Hampson-Jones
12
knowledge projects that have been managed. The results appear to diverge in to three categories. Knowledge repository projects collate information, data and knowledge to make it accessible to wider base. There are three identified types of repository projects, according to Davenport and Prusak: The external knowledge repository, which could be competitor knowledge and research structured internal knowledge, which would be internally produced research and informal internal knowledge repositories, which could be databases of captured tacit knowledge built up through employees experience. One issue with knowledge repositories is they mere consolidate knowledge and are not exploratory, meaning new knowledge is most likely to be found rather than created. Knowledge access and transfer projects create a pull system for knowledge transfer, rather than a push system. That is to say that a person seeking certain knowledge is directed to the person or resource that may have that knowledge and transfer occurs once the two are connected. It is similar to a directory of resources, but is not a library of knowledge as repository project would be. Finally the knowledge environment is the most proactive of knowledge projects. These projects focus on creating a culture of knowledge and include the work needed to create and manage a learning organisation, aspects that are key to the recommendations made later in this study. 4.1.3 The Learning Organisation A learning organisation is defined as one which has become skilled at creating and transferring knowledge within it and able to respond to that knowledge, if necessary, by modifying its behaviour. The company is in many ways modelled on the learning individual and benefits, whilst not all tangible, generally err towards the long term. Senge popularised the learning organisation as a concept, describing it as an organisation, Where people continuously expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together. (Senge, 1990) Senges words echo Davenport and Prusaks assertions of knowledge management as an evolutionary practice, but do so in a way specific to organisations adding a pragmatic element. Creating a learning organisation is closely linked to effective knowledge management and an area which most companies aspire to, but rarely are able to reach. Garvin believes there are five vital areas for companies to encourage focus upon, each having a distinct mental approach, behaviours and tools to succeed, as he goes on to describe: Learning organisations are skilled at five main activities: systematic problem solving, experimentation with new approaches, learning from their own experience and past history, learning from the experiences and best practices of others and transferring knowledge quickly and efficiently throughout the organisation. (Garvin, 1993) These areas noted by Garvin interlink with the component technologies referred to by Senge earlier. These technologies-systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learningcould all be mapped to Garvins solution adding strength not only in the theories themselves, but the potential for practical applications, which are evidenced in Davenport & Prusaks work. The concept of the learning organisation could be argued, like knowledge management as a practice itself can be, to be a theoretic philosophy. I would not subscribe to this view myself as there are practical Newell Hampson-Jones
13
implementative aspects to the strategies suggested by Nonaka, Senge and Garvin and evidenced in Davenport and Prusak. The pragmatic approach of knowledge management is very closely linked to the technologies available, which can be used to drive relevant projects. Hansen, Nohria and Tierney look at the technological relationship between knowledge management projects theory and practice and how the infrastructures could be the bridge between concept and practice. The study describes two knowledge management strategies which have been discovered in a number of consultancy firms: codification and personification. Of the strategies, codification deals with the explicit knowledge, whilst personification is concentrated on building creativity and individual expertise through tacit knowledge. In many ways one could argue the approaches work at odds to each other, which the authors appear to agree with when they discuss the different technology requirements: The two knowledge management strategies require different IT infrastructures as well as different levels of support. In the codification model, managers need to implement a system that is much like a traditional libraryit must contain a large cache of documents and include search engines that allow people to find and use the documents they need. In the personalization model, its most important to have a system that allows people to find other people. (Hansen, Norhira, & Tierney, 1999) Further discussion on the subject brings forth interesting revelations. As the diagram below shows, the authors believe reducing investment in technology will deliver more progress when pursuing a personalization strategy but, conversely, indicate investing heavily in technology for a codification strategy will bring the greater results:
14
Figure 3 - How Consulting Firms Manage Their Knowledge (Hansen, Norhira, & Tierney, 1999)
Hansen, Nohria and Tierney believe that over-investment in technology could make processes complex and cumbersome if out of sync with the organisations strategy, however one must question whether this is still relevant in the contemporary society. Upon examination, it appears that the personalisation model, alongside Garvin and Senges learning organisation analyses, could have an increased impact when the processes are integrated within the knowledge economy. That said, technology has also played an important part in the development of the knowledge economy; becoming most recently one of the most vital drivers of the economy. Software to enhance the knowledge cycle has been developed and many organisations have the opportunity to choose their technology strategies and tools, rather than spend costly time and resources developing them in order to enter or maintain position in a market. The opening up technology in to an open source market has helped fuel the importance of areas like social networking, where the ability to connect, share and collaborate is enhanced. In many ways the rise of open source social networking chimes with Garvins assertion that the ability to connect with one another will be catalyst for the knowledge economy, enabling it to create and assimilate new knowledge. Drucker argued, Only connect was the constant admonition of a great English novelist, E.M. Forster. It has always been the hallmark of the great artist, but equally of the great scientistof a Darwin, a Bohr, an Einstein. At their level, the capacity to connect may be inborn and part of that mystery we call genius. But to a large extent, the ability to connect Newell Hampson-Jones
15
and thus to raise the yield of existing knowledge (whether for an individual, for a team, or for the entire organization) is learnable. (Drucker, 1993) This point again has great relevance to recent events. One could argue that the recent banking crisiswhere there were stories exposing the lack of understanding of the financial instruments being traded by those who traded them, were an example of an inability to connect and a failure of knowledge management. It may be disputable, but nonetheless possible, to claim that those who created the financial instruments that led to the banking crashes were as Drucker terms, geniuses. The ability to connect this genius to the knowledge worker in a way that ensured the thorough understanding of how these products worked, however, appears to have clearly failed even with the tools to connect widely available. If this is a factor to the crisis, then the question then must be asked: how did this happen? These social networks could have been, and in some cases were, catalysts for learning and go a long way to strengthening the knowledge economy. It could be that, it the issue has arisen through the normalisation of these ideologies to the latter generations, possibly due to a sociological over-reliance of technology-as warned by Hansen, Nohria and Tierney-which could arguably have hampered descending generations abilities to connect. I also believe that whilst technologies have been created to connect, as generations evolve, they have forgotten the driving reasons behind making these technologies for the market; those reasons being to create a learning organisation able to connect for the transferring and sharing of knowledge. Its very noticeable that a majority of these theories were built at least a decade ago and we have seen, in that time, a new generation enter the labour force; a generation which might understand that learning and knowledge is important, but doesnt understand why it is important. It is for this reason that it is important to define the generations in order to understand how they interact, specifically in a knowledge management context.
4.2 Defining the Generations

4.2.1 Who are the Generations? There has been a comparatively rapid shift in business thinking over recent decades. Davidson appears to agree with my earlier sentiment regarding technology, believing this evolution could be technology based; linked to the rise of the internet, saying: Just as steam power and the assembly line changed the 20th century, two inventions have changed the workplace in the 21st: the internet and the World Wide Web. (Davidson, 2011) Technology has always been important to generational shifts. As Davison says; many shifts have been the result of the impacts of disruptive technologies. But while technology is undoubtedly important, one cannot assume it is the only defining factor of a generational perspective. Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line explored the different aspects of the generations and discovered a number of traits. Most interesting is that the study discusses the presence of knowledge workers throughout in the summing up, but frustratingly does not expand on this elsewhere. The impetus of this study was to examine and predict the issues of Generation Y entering the workforce but, by this researchs measurement, we have seen much of this generation integrate already, although not all of it. Furthermore, the study points out that we are about to see the following generation, Generation Z, arriving as well. Interestingly, it appears that whilst Generation Y was a revolution from Generation X, Generation Z is a mere increment from Y, with both sharing very similar traits. It is for Newell Hampson-Jones
16
that reason, then, we will continue to look at the impact Gen Y has had, using it as a template for managing Gen Zs impending entry. There is also another issue this study presents that was not previously a factor of this study but is still relevant to the recommendations and catered for. That issue is the withdrawal of the Baby Boomers from the workforce, which has begun only most recently. Gen X and Gen Y have both been disruptive generations, but the Baby Boomers and, as mentioned previously, Gen Z both appear to be incremental generations to their respective predecessors. This makes the prime area of focus in the study the difficulties of 3 largely differing generations managing knowledge together as the one leaves and another enters. As we begin to see the Baby Boomer generation depart from the workforce, it is interesting to note that the study found that they have a stronger concern about social responsibility than any other generation group when they consider employment, adding, This is different to common belief that Gen Y value social responsibility more than other generations. Although many of that generation do value social responsibility, their choices and behaviour are not driven by this. (Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line, 2008) One area that is a common descriptive trait of Generation Y that Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line qualify is the tendency of this generation to blur work and social lives, creating a work/life balance that previous generations would describe as unhealthy. It appears that this generation can justify social integration to improve employability. This matches with the rise in social networking over recent years and is further qualified by the noted likelihood of Gen Y employees to recommend their employer. Consider the issues that generational integration could present for an organisational culture and this becomes highly relevant as the happiness of Gen Y employees could carry more weight than their predecessors because they can encourage new talent to join the organisation. With that in mind, it is interesting when Burkinshaw and Pass state, Our research shows that most organisations have not fully embraced the needs of Generation Y employees of the opportunities afforded by Web 2.0 technologies. (Burkinshaw & Pass, 2008) The risk of not catering for generational integration could be high and the non-preparedness of organisations would have a telling negative effect on their economy. This means that understanding the possible issues of generational integration, as the recommendations will show, is vital to organisations succeeding in a knowledge economy. 4.2.2 What Challenges does Generation Integration Present? Understanding the issues generation integration can present can help prevent these issues from arising and affecting an organisations performance. Drewery et al identified the key areas of concern for the four generations in the work force: Veterans Retention & Customer service This generation is concerned with being able to work, refusing to retire and wishing to remain employed both in the market and by society. They measure their relevance by their respect, which can be earned through retention and demonstrated through customer service. Baby Boomers Performance measurement
17
This generation does not equate pay to meritocracy, feeling that good performance does not result in financial reward but loyalty and experience does. They also believe in a divided work/life balance and avoiding overflow between the two. Generation X Internal communications The majority of Gen Xers are happy with the resources provided for their job; however this is concerned a prime concern in measuring their productivity and happiness. If relevant knowledge is not communicated to them, motivation may fall and productivity reduce. Generation Y Leadership and Development The diagram below details the factors important to Generation Y employees, but also how these factors may affect relationships with preceding generations:
Figure 4 - Possible sources of generational conflict from the perspective of Generation Y (Drewery, Riley, Staff, Worman, & Line, 2008)
18
Ericksons study in to the working practices between generations show further issues that could occur. The issues presented match those above, but in more refined situations, with one executive advising, Josh isnt doing much here to disprove the theories that some people have about Generation Y: a life experienced through machines, no respect for whats gone before, and a constant need for praise, entertainment, and instant gratification. Josh is intelligent and tech-savvy, sure, but he wont get very far by trying to make a name for himself on the backs of his boss and the members of his work group. (Erickson, 2009) This advice is relevant and appears to agree with the findings of Hansen, Nohria and Tierney, where technology reliance saw personalization practices hindered, but when contrasted to Drewery. et al., there are also issues on the other side of the generational gap. Snook explains how traditional management beliefs may not be suitable for the more contemporary employee, stating, Acceptable models of leadership have shown their softer side. This shift in the predominant leadership model reflects the move from an industrial to an information economy. In factories, you need strict rules and you reward people based on very simple and clear productivity metrics. Knowledge workers dont respond well to such rigidity, and fearful service employees would have trouble putting on a good face for customers. (Snook, 2008) Comparing these studies it is becoming clearer where the divides fall and for what reasons. Understanding these issues can present an ideal dynamic which can maximise the ability to provide possible frameworks to resolve generational friction. In an ideal organisational culture, leadership would soften and nurture younger employees, encouraging their development. To compliment this dynamic, Generation Y employees would respect the pre-existing hierarchies and use their ability to blend their social and work lives to drive their performance. The main difficulties the organisation could encounter on the way to this ideal include the lack of trust in ability that appears to exist towards the younger generation and the over ambition of that generation, which could fuel the conflicts shown in Ericksons case study. Through effective knowledge management, tools and frameworks can be constructed to assist with implementation, integration and bridging the divides seen between generations without technology interference, as seen in the recommendations of this study.
19
5.0 Higher Education

The previous chapter established the role of the knowledge economy and defined the generations. I feel there is strong evidence to support the view that the UK has been transitioning in to a knowledge economy, which has been accelerated through influx of Generation Y to the labour force. I believe one key factor to this move has been education, in particular the rise in perceived importance of higher education. In order to understand the role this sector can play within the knowledge economy, understanding the complexity of the structure and systems in place is vital and background reading for this subject can be found in Appendix A. The objective of this chapter, however, is to create an informative base of knowledge directly applicable to or influencing the recommendations and arguments made later. I hope this objective will begin to be met through detailing the benefits the higher education sector brings to the UK in both a financial and knowledge management context. As the sector is in a state of transition, the analysis of economic benefits will be followed by an exploration of the arguments for a selection of funding proposals as well as an exploration of the future funding structures proposed by the UK government. These evaluations will have a significant impact on the recommendations made later, especially when exploring them in the context of practical implementation. It is my hope that the information and discussion provided in this chapter will form a strong, contextual foundation which can naturally link between the two focal subjects of this study: knowledge management and generational transition.
5.1 The Benefits of Higher Education

As mentioned earlier, the higher education (HE) sector is transitioning to meet the needs of the modern economy, with new funding structures proposed which will change the make-up of the sector dramatically. In order to understand the arguments behind the proposals, an understanding of the benefits of the sector is needed. Kelly, McLellan and McNicoll concluded that in the 2007/2008 financial year the sector added 59.25 billion output, of which 22.44 billion was direct and 35.81 billion was indirect. This meant a GDP contribution of 33.41 billion which split to direct and indirect contributions of 15.16 billion and 18.25 billion respectively. This study also stated that the sector brings export earnings of 5.3 billion. The report concluded saying, The evidence confirms that higher education (defined as the universities together with the expenditure of their staff, international students and international visitors) is a substantial industry, with a significant impact on the national economy. It also reveals that higher education is particularly effective in generating GDP per capita, compared to several other sectors of the economy. (Kelly, McLellan, & McNicoll, 2009) The positive benefits of the sector to the UK economy is reaffirmed by London Economics, who detail that the net present value for the government in funding an undergraduate degree is currently 81,875 per degree awarded. The study goes further to add, The rate of return provides an indication of whether the Exchequer investment is worthwhile relative to the next best option (generally considered to be the cost associated with long term borrowing). If the rate of return exceeds the cost of borrowing (30 year UK Gilt currently trading between 4.25% and 4.75%), then the investment might be considered to be worthwhile. The Exchequer rate of return Newell Hampson-Jones
20
resulting from the funding of undergraduate degrees stands at between 11.0% and 12.1% overall (London Economics , 2011) With such a high rate of return for the exchequer there are clear public benefits for the economy that come from the higher education sector. These benefits are not wholly limited to the public purse, with individuals benefitting, according to London Economics calculations, to a similar rate of return, 12.1%, giving the degree earned a net present value of 117, 342. In the higher education debate surrounding the tuition fees vote the Conservative MP for Reading West, Alok Sharma, declared, Students realise that having a good degree adds value to their prospects and is a passport to a better job. OECD figures clearly indicate that UK graduates earn, on average, 50% more than those who finished education at A-level. (Hansard, 2010) The figure itself is of some consternation, particularly as he goes no further to detail these calculations. London Economics agree that there is significant benefit to the individual, calculating an increase in salary of 112,000 over a graduates lifetime (London Economics , 2011). Whilst this evidence supports Mr Sharmas view that there is benefit to the individual through higher education routes, I feel the amount London Economics provides calls in to question the Mr Sharmas accuracy in his quoting of the OECD. This evidence goes some way to proving that there is an immediate financial benefit to both the economy and the individual through the higher education sector. The fact that the individual reaps significant long term benefit has been the root of argument for many who ask why the taxpayer should fund something which is to the individuals advantage. But when one considers the fact that the public finances benefit at an extent which places higher education as one of the most effective forms of investment for the country, this argument can seem moot. The government benefits extensively from this investment which fuels the economy. This benefit is exponentially larger when one considers the progression from industrialised to knowledge economy that the UK has seen in recent decades, placing universities and further education at the forefront of economic stimulation for an economy. Buchbinder is a great advocate of universities, believing they provide social knowledge which could benefit wider society, saying, The academic staff, charged with the production and transmission of knowledge are the core f the university along with the students who are recipients of that knowledge and often engage in its production as wellA key ingredient in the production and transmission of social knowledge is autonomy; autonomy of the academic worker and autonomy of the academic institution. (Buchbinder, 1993) Buchbinder presents a role for higher education, using knowledge management ideas. He sees the sector as vital to creating knowledge for society that the market would not be able to provide due the unprofitable nature of it. Whilst some could say that knowledge management tools, like those recommended by Nonaka, Senge and Garvin could soften the markets stance to unprofitable research as a method of encouraging innovation. Buchbinder believes truly social research would still be in decline, which he feels will impede society and the economy. Buchbinder is clearly a proponent of the Newell Hampson-Jones
21
current autonomous financial system and, it appears, he finds an ally in the form of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) who believe, "Public investments in education, particularly at the tertiary level, are rational even in the face of running a deficit in public finances. Issuing government bonds to finance these investments will yield significant returns and improve public finances in the longer term" (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2010) Even after the consideration of the OECDs recommendation to fund higher education, there is still debate focused around the balance of value to individuals and the state. Alongside the issues raised earlier by the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee on standards and the nature of the funding structure in higher education had provoked increased scrutiny. This scrutiny meant a review of the sector was required to evaluate and recommend the way forward for higher education in England therough the Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, led by Lord Browne of Madingley at the request of the government.
5.2 Proposed changes to the Higher Education sector

5.2.1 The Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance The Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance was launched on November 9th, 2009 by the then First Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson. The remit of this review-commonly entitled the Browne review-was to re-evaluate the funding of higher education, ensure it remained a viable choice to international students against competitors from other higher education systems and simplify an over-burdened student support system. Mandelson launched the review, stating: We need universities to continue to thrive and meet this vision, and Lord Browne and his team will examine the balance of contributions to universities by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers This is an important piece of work that will require extensive consultation with all who would be affected by any changes, including current and potential students. (Gill, 2009) Considering this Browne review was a reaction to the earlier Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee report and looking at the quotes close to the publication from HEFCE in appendix A (Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2010), one could perceive that there was widespread expectation that tuition fees would rise. The report went further than this. Believing the 2006 rise in tuition fees did not harm demand from students, the panel suggested the removal of the tuition fees cap with government underwriting all fees up to 6,000 and a regulatory levy system on the amounts paid above that to contribute to the cost of borrowing the government would incur through the student loans system. (Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, 2010). It was the panels belief that these proposals would empower students and quality-an issue of consternation in the previous committee report-would be increased by the forces of market competition. The review stated: Our proposals are designed to create genuine competition for students between institutions, of a kind which cannot take place under the current system. There will be more investment available for the institutions that are able to convince students that it is worthwhile. This is in our view a surer way to drive up quality than any attempt Newell Hampson-Jones
22
at central planning. To safeguard this approach, we recommend that the HE Council enforces minimum standards of quality; and that students receive high quality information to help them choose the institution and programme which best matches their aspirations. (Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, 2010) The headline proposal, that the tuition fees cap should be removed, garnered a lot of criticism. The UK students representative body, the National Union of Students (NUS), attributed an overnight 11 point drop in approval of the government, using evidence from another opinion poll showing public support for a graduate tax over the reviews proposals by way of justification for this claim. The NUS president at the time, Aaron Porter, stated: "Lord Browne's dangerous proposals are clearly out of touch with the public mood and would put our future at risk. "The Government must now rethink this review to ensure the fair and sustainable funding of students and universities that recognises their central importance to our economy." (National Union of Students, 2010) The NUS had themselves presented a rival blueprint for funding, which became one of the most widely publicised alternatives in a field of many. The blueprint was portrayed by many-including the NUS-as a graduate tax (BBC, 2010); however this is a vast simplification of the system. The misconceptions and miscommunications in the media appear to have led the review panel, when discussing a graduate tax, to present a structure vastly different to the NUS blueprint, as the table below shows.
23
Figure 5 - The comparison between a graduate tax and the NUS blueprint (Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, 2010)
The NUS blueprint proposed that a stakeholder funded national education trust be set up through an Act of Parliament. This would be managed by a board of trustees, independent from government with various stakeholders who will channel the funds earned through this system via the current funding councils. Contributions will come from graduates, their employers and employers of current graduates, with students making their contribution for a fixed twenty year period after completing their course. The employer contribution would be derived by an introduced academic credit structure to encourage more part-time work-study balance to those unable to take the financial risks of full-time study. For Newell Hampson-Jones
24
those employing students who have completed their education in the traditional way, tax benefits will encourage the employees to make a lump sum payment towards the employees credits. The employee may also have the choice to make a fixed annual payment which could mean the blueprint becomes a retentions device for employers of skilled workers. Compare this to the information presented by the Browne review above, and there are stark differences between what appears to be the panels perception of a graduate tax and the actual blueprint that NUS had presented. Firstly, and most perplexingly, the Payment terms incorrectly states that payments are made indefinitely under graduate tax, which is never mentioned in the NUS submission. In fact, studying the other stakeholders proposals, I have seen no evidence to conclude that there were any suggestions of a tax scheme which required lifetime repayments, be they from the university mission groups1 (Russell Group of Universities, 2010), (1994 Group, 2010), (London Economics, 2010) (Aston, 2010) or third party think tanks (Mulheirn & Shorthouse, 2010), (Rich, 2010) The review makes another mistake when evaluating the graduate tax. Under Protections for graduates on low incomes the panel state that graduates pay tax upon crossing the income threshold; another point flatly disputed when compared to the NUS Blueprint, which sets a threshold of 15,000 per annum. I have not found any evidence to suggest these were anything other than assumptive mistakes made by the panel and I feel this must draw question to the legitimacy of the review if the evidence submitted was not scrutinised properly. I am also concerned that the final two points, Relationship between students and universities and Incentives for institutions seem rooted more in market ideological theory than grounded in the evidence I have seen; a claim which is echoed by later criticisms of the review. The most damning criticism of the review came from Times Higher Education who discovered that the review commissioned only one research survey (Morgan, 2011a), much of which showed clear disagreement with many of the policy proposals put forward in the final document (Morgan, 2011b). This led the publication to state: Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said the level of expenditure, particularly on research, is astonishingly low for a report of this magnitude and importance. He said the market research should have been published to lend confidence to the conclusions that were reached about the likely responses of students, their advisers and universities (Morgan, 2011a) These criticisms bring in to question the reliability of the report which is not only worrying for the influence that had been bestowed upon it by the government but, most frustratingly, also calls in to question the recommendations by the review which could have a positive impact. Recommendations like the inclusion of part-time students into the student loans system, an increase of student places by 10% before removing the student quota altogether or the merging of the four2 separate bodies of oversight in the sector in to one. This idea could increase access-one of the key aims of the review-by linking academic standards, funding and social mobility, creating an authoritative body whilst still respecting the autonomy of the sector. These aspects could really enhance generational knowledge management for the economy and improve the effectiveness of knowledge workers as well as improving the transition of the UK into becoming a well-managed knowledge economy. The criticisms levelled at the
The role of mission groups in the sector is explained in Appendix B. As well as HEFCE and QAA, the Browne review recommends the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) and Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) are merged to form the Higher Education Council.
2 1
25
review and the reaction by the public of the radical proposals meant that a full-scale adoption was impossible for the government, which has led to a portfolio of adapted proposals from the Department of Business Innovation and Skills. 5.3.2 Current government proposals On November 3rd, 2011, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills announced the policy that they would be progressing with over the following months. The policy included: Graduate contribution threshold being increased from 3,290 to 6,000 per year, with charges of 9,000 in exceptional cases. The funds to afford the fees will be loaned to students, with no payment made by then until after graduation and a threshold is reached, replicating current conditions. The threshold at which students begin repaying their loans is increased from 15,000 to 21,000. The announcement of a higher education white paper, to be published in winter, 2010.
Minister for Universities and Science, The Right Honourable David Willets MP said of the policy, We have taken account of an extensive range of views including endorsing the key recommendations of Lord Brownes independent review of HE funding and student finance. Good quality higher education is important in itself, but also to the economy in the long term delivering highly skilled and well educated employees to businesses. The current system of funding for universities is unsustainable and in need of reform. (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) , 2010) This policy has been implemented in two stages. Firstly, using a clause in previous legislation, a vote was called in parliament where both fee levels were both passed, by slim majorities. The votes in favour of these measures could have been influenced by the expectation of the white paper, which was intended to justify the policy; however this paper has still not been presented at the time of writing. These policies were immediately criticised from a range of perspectives, although praised by some mission groups who saw a rise in graduate contribution thresholds-another term for tuition fees-as necessary for the sector to survive the swingeing public funding cuts the sector will endure in future years. The funding letter to HEFCE from BIS stated the expectation of public money for teaching to reduce from 4.9bn in 2010 to 2bn in 2014, in cash terms. (Cullerne-Brown, 2011a) This money is expected to be made up by the increase in tuition fees and therein lies where issues of this policy have begun to be exposed. The initial expectation, above, that 9,000 tuition fees would be only in exceptional cases-a phrase repeated in parliament by Vince Cable in the debate prior to the vote securing the passing of the tuition fees levels-have been proven to be nave at best. BIS had declared and provided guidance to the Office of Fair Access (OFFA) to ensure that those charging over 6,000 are committed to widening participation to those from low income households. Without the white paper, though, OFFA cannot regulate the market with the stronger powers that ministers have stated they would have (CullerneBrown, 2011). Furthermore, once the deadline for universities submitting access agreements, which are key to the rationale behind setting fee levels for universities passed, it was announced that every Newell Hampson-Jones
26
university in England will be charging over the 6,000 threshold. (Shepherd, 2011) The embarrassment was compounded as fees announced by universities all exceeded 6,000 by a considerable margin, with many choosing to set the full 9,000 amount. The policy was made even more untenable when the access agreement to OFFA from Cambridge University was made available with the contents particularly damning indicating the initial effects of the policy could be far more negative than ministers from BIS have understood. Reporting on the matter, Boffey reported that, Cambridge's submission confirms that its principal milestone is to increase the proportion of our UK undergraduate intake from schools in the UK state sector. But it adds: Given the uncertainty regarding application trends in light of the new financial circumstances, our minimum objective for 2012 will be to maintain our intake profile. (Boffey, 2011) Put simply, Cambridge was refusing to increase its access target for 2012, they year the new tuition fee levels would apply from, as they were convinced the fee levels would deter students from low income backgrounds to apply. This matches with the polling data that has been released showing that many current students in higher education would not have applied under 2012 fee levels (BBC, 2011) and the survey commissioned for, but unused by, the Browne review which stated the fees cap should have been raised no higher than 6,000. The existence of both surveys heavily detracts from the governments messages about their policy, but more damaging is evidence submitted to the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee. Lord Browne first appeared to offer reticent concern over the current policies being implemented by the government, saying to the committee, By having a cap, most people would agree that people tend to migrate towards it. If you do not have a cap, it is a very different decision-making process. (Baker, 2011) Brownes suggestion does appear to make a modicum of sense, whereby the placing of the cap levels makes it more acceptable, from the publics perception, to charge the full amount. There can be a vacuum of responsibility, which appears to be the case at the moment, where universities can blame ministers for setting the cap at the limit and ministers can blame universities for taking advantage of the cap. Without the cap, the full responsibility of the fee setting is laid at the feet of the universities only who have to decide how to progress. Either way, the public wont accept the fees as fair but, under current conditions, blame can appropriated to the governments naivety and lack of foresight, not university heads perceived greed. One could argue the decisions taken would be far different had the whole responsibility been transferred to the universities and that-ironically-this policy has done more harm for the sector than the Browne reviews ultimate recommendations. This view is arguably backed up by another compelling evidence submission by London Economics (London Economics , 2011), detailing the possible implications of these decisions and the effects certain scenarios can have on public finances. Within this evidence it is suggested that: As a whole, students and graduates under these policies will be 1. 489 billion per annum worse off and, whilst the exchequer will be better off in the short term, the cost associated with student loans will rise to 3.591 billion p.a., if average fees are 7,500 (as per original treasury calculations).
27
On average, graduates will take 10 years more to repay their loans than they do under the present system (14-15 years) and, if the average fees exceed 7,500, then the exchequer can expect to recover no more than 35% of loans given. The current estimated average level is close to 8,500, which could incur the exchequer an additional annual cost of 181.8m in just Resource Accounting and Budgeting charges. These charges estimate the proportion of the nominal loan value that would not be expected to be repaid in present value terms.
Despite the obvious cost burdens being placed on the exchequer, the long term shift in ultimate debt burden appears to be the driving force behind this policy. It seems the government want to, instead of funding the sector directly, offer funding routed through students with the treasury as guarantor, taking this money off of the national balance sheet. These loans will have interest charged at the retail price interest (RPI) plus three percent during the time of study with an income based progressive interest rate structure in place once the graduate enters the employment market. Whilst the latter interest rate seems fair, the interest rates charged during the study time incur hidden costs during the term of study and the use of RPI instead of the lower consumer price index has been calculated to cost graduates up to an additional 5,000 more (Trades Union Congress, 2011). The presence of these interest rates also mean the student funding system becomes even more inaccessible for practicing Muslims (Abrahams, 2010). London Economics evidence submission goes on to conclude that: London Economics analysis of the outcomes following the Browne Report and the content of the Government's proposed White Paper suggests that first time undergraduates attending English HEIs will be significantly worse off, while higher education institutions may be marginally better off. Despite the 2 billion increase in the annual cost of student loans, the Exchequer will be better off in the short term; however, the lost taxation receipts resulting from fewer graduates and the impact on educational exports will have a long term negative impact on the Exchequer. The piecemeal changes to the system of student support have also made it more complex than was previously the case. (London Economics , 2011) I find it most interesting the exchequer stands to lose taxation receipts as a result of these plans, which could be seen as evidence of the UKs emergence as a knowledge economy. This evidence shows just how important the funding argument is to the knowledge economy as a whole as the lost tax receipts will mean a contraction in the progress of this knowledge economy. This begs me to ask, as we await the arrival of Generation Z to the work force, could a knowledge management framework accurately assess the impacts of funding proposals whilst adding an extra dimension to the benefits of higher education which, whilst noted in the knowledge management context, have not been referred to within the recent debate surrounding funding proposals. The financial argument that is dominant is no doubt important, however it appears that value of social knowledge that this sector brings has been ignored, which hopefully will be addressed in the recommendations of this research.
28
6.0 Standardisation
This study aims to look at two areas which I feel could assist the management of knowledge between generations. In the previous chapter, I looked at higher education; evaluating its benefits and highlighting the importance of recent events to generational transition and the knowledge economy. This chapter looks to explore how standardisation can benefit, again with the intended focus being knowledge management between the generations. Where higher education has a role in training future knowledge workers, the standardisation process can be harnessed to ensure knowledge is created and available to share between the generations whilst still contributing to the economy, having an important impact on the recommendations made later on. So that these recommendations have a strong foundation of base information, this chapter will detail what standards are, discussing the role each level plays. Whilst the historical context of standardisation is discussed in Appendix C, this chapter looks at defining the types of standards and their practices, the tools and methods by which an organisation can comply to standards and-most importantly the benefits that standards can offer the economy and organisations, with an explicit regard for knowledge management theories and processes.
6.1 How Standards are defined

British Standards Institution (BSI) has identified six commonly considered levels of standards, detailed in the diagram below.
Figure 6 - The 6 Levels of Standardisation (Hampson-Jones, 2011)
Corporate Technical Specifications are explicit sets of requirements to be satisfied by a material, product, or service. For example, the product specifications of a laptop or iPod. These standards are quick to write because the contents are easily controlled by the wishes of the company or companys dedicated employees producing them. Moving up the diagram, each level takes longer to write. This is because for each further progression up the scale, more varied stakeholders enter the process, meaning the final standard requires consensus from a wider spectrum including, in some cases, the public that are within the remit of the produced standard. Newell Hampson-Jones
29
Private standards are privately owned process or policy documents. For example, a companys branding guidelines or the equality/health and safety policies which add a level above legislation tailored to the explicit needs of the company. A Publicly Available Specification (PAS) is a consultative document based on the formal national, European or international Standard model. They are standards which begin as sponsored projects by stakeholders wishing to drive the creation of a best practice document. Any organisation, association or group who wish to document standardized best practice on a specific subject, can commission a PAS, subject to the BSI acceptance process. This could be for areas where there is little to no known market for a formal standard, like in innovative technologies or newly researched practices. The timescale for the development of a PAS can be shorter, typically around 8-12 months as it does not have as strong a concern for consensus as standards on higher levels; a PAS invites comments from any interested party but does not necessarily incorporate them into the final publication. Some PAS standards have been ascended to British Standards, the most recent example of this is BS 11000 Collaborative Business Relationships, which began as PAS 11000. (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2011a) British Standards are formally produced British national standards from BSI. Within this and the higher levels, there are several categories of standards.3 The process for the production of British Standards is explained within its own standard, BS0 (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2005a); (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2005b). This process starts with the proposal of a new work item. Most work items may be born within the committee, but new work can be proposed by any member of the public. Once a proposal is received, a business case is made for it within the committee, to fulfil acceptance criteria and the proposal is entered into the formal acceptance process. Upon acceptance, a small group of experts will draft the standard and then present this draft to the technical committee for wider consultation. Once the committee has approved the draft, it goes out for public comment this is when anyone is free to propose changes or additions to the draft document. The public comment stage ensures that every national, European and international standard is transparent and accepted by the wider public. Once the public comments have been considered and appropriate actions taken, the draft progresses forward for final approval, which can only reached through consensus. The secretary or chairperson of the committee then gives endorsement to publish and the standard becomes available to the public. Standards are reviewed at least once every 5 years, to ensure they remain relevant and any industry innovations are accounted for. One of 5 decisions is made: confirmed without change, confirmed after minor amendment, confirmed after major amendment, withdrawn or declared obsolescent. There are differences in the European and International standardisation processes from the BSI process. There is still the public consultation process after which, taking into consideration the resulting comments, a final version is drafted. This draft is then submitted to the bodys members. For the publication of European standards, a weighted formal vote must be made to ratify the document. (European Committee for Standardization (CEN), 2010); (European Committee for Standardization (CEN) , 2009) After ratification by CEN, each of the National Standards Bodies adopts the European Standard as an identical national standard and withdraws any national standards which conflict. For example, the European Standard on toy safety, EN 71, has been adopted as NF EN 71 by AFNOR in France, EVS EN 71 by EVS in Estonia and BS EN 71 in the United Kingdom. The standard is published by the national standards body, who may also add a nationally relevant foreword if needed. The ISO standardisation process is also slightly different to both CEN and BSI processes, explained in the ISO/IEC Directives Supplement (International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2007). A draft International Standard (DIS) is made available, at the enquiry stage, to all ISO member bodies. They are then all entitled to vote and comment on the document during a five month period. If the DIS
3
The categories of British Standards can be found detailed in Appendix C.
30
receives 100% approval, it may proceed directly to publication once any comments received have been addressed. Otherwise, a final draft International Standard (FDIS) is sent to all ISO member bodies for voting for a period of two months, together with the report of voting on the DIS which includes all the comments received and how these have been addressed. ISOs process subscribes to a one member one vote process for the production of international standards, which differs from CENs weighted vote process and, most importantly, BSIs consensus building model.
6.2 Compliance with standards

Laws have no value if they cannot be enforced. Standards have a similar caveat, in that they have no value if companies cannot be compliant to them. There are a number of ways for a company to become compliant: Self-assessment The company evaluates the criteria of a standard and declare that they meet this standard. This can be dangerous and leave the company open to legal challenges should they be proven to be noncompliant. There are self-assessment tools available, designed by third parties, to help companies mitigate such risk. (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2011b) Testing Testing, where products are laboratory tested to meet a standards specifications, has a number of issues. Firstly, testing is a snap shot in time. A sample may work at that moment, under the conditions set, but may degrade over time to mean it would not comply later on. Furthermore, should any design or operational changes be made to the product, retesting would be necessary. Test subjects could also be susceptible to golden sampling; a company could choose its best products to go through the process, already confident these products will pass. Most test centres should already understand these issues, meaning any report or certificates gained through testing should be very specific, not saying that the product meets a standard, but instead, The sample submitted complied with the requirements of [standard number]. Certification Certification is a system of continual assessment to a standard, meaning the issues mentioned above which arise through the testing process are reduced. Certifications continual assessment means that changes in design are considered and integrated into the process, so it could be considered more than just a test and more than just a quality control system. Accreditation One example of a successful accreditation scheme is BSIs Kitemark. The Kitemark is a term and mark owned by BSI and issued under license to those companies which enter the accreditation scheme. The process for obtaining a Kitemark is more stringent than certification due to the fact that the mark issued to show accreditation has greater consumer responsibility than a certification. Not every standard has a Kitemark scheme, however their processes are similar. A pre-audit visit is required to ensure the scheme is suitable for the company, products and systems. This is followed by an initial random testing against the relevant standard. A site visit then evaluates the companys process systems to ensure that they have the capacity to maintain the product or services quality. With all the data collected a Kitemark scheme manager reviews this Newell Hampson-Jones
31
information before making a decision on awarding the licence. The process does not end with the issuing of the licence, however. Continuing assessment visits and audit tests are made to ensure that the requirements continue to be met and systems maintained. (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2009) With the above considered, the relationship between standards publisher and compliance body must be defined. Whilst a standards body may publish a standard, they cannot claim authoritative regulatory powers over those standards. Therefore, any organisation can, if it wishes, be established as a testing house or certification/accreditation body. Border and Danvers define the relationship between of compliance and standards body when they say of BSI, Allactivities and products are entirely voluntary on the part of those who choose to use them. However, in many cases, complying with a British Standard or being able to demonstrate third-party product certification will offer an attractive and cost effective short cut is discharging statutory obligationsIts product testing and certification businesses simply assess a product against a set of objective criteria (typically, but not necessarily, a British Standard). They dont say that it is good, high quality, or necessarily fit for the purpose to which someone might wish to put it; simply that is meets or fails to meet the requirements stipulated (Border & Danvers, 2010) The clarification here is that BSI does offer the compliance services as detailed above, however these are dealt with independently from the standard publishing aspect of the organisation, meaning they are no more or less authoritative to other companies. Border and Danvers also clarify the statutory powers of standards, in that there are none, directly. A company has no legal obligation to comply with a standard however formal compliance does add an indirect legal aspect to standardisation that must be considered. If an organisation were to declare compliance, however a product or service was proven to not meet the standard, then the company making the declaration becomes legally culpable.
6.3 The Benefits of Standardisation and Compliance

Standards can benefit a wide base of stakeholders; however the focus for this study is those benefits gained by companies and the economy. Standardisation is, as stated previously, voluntary but compliance can be occasionally coerced by government mandate. It is interesting to note, however that there are more benefits to companies complying voluntarily than there are through mandate. Explaining why government would set the mandate, Henry observes, As a general rule, those measures in the standards and conformance infrastructure that are mandated in law are more likely to be those where, left to itself, the market would fail to deliver an acceptable outcome for the community. Thus, government intervention in the market is justified. The intervention is often related to safety; but also includes more fundamental aspects of the market like legal metrology and performance standards for credence goods. Measures for voluntary application are more likely to benefit business. In that case, the benefit to business outweighs the costs of implementation and the market will adjust itself, once an agreed benchmark is established through the standard. The benefits of implementing a standard for business include: a) Enhanced market share due to market demand for standards compliance. Newell Hampson-Jones
32
b) Preferential treatment by government. c) Simplifying business to business trade d) Improved production efficiency. e) Reduced hence inventory costs as a result of the need to hold fewer varieties. (Henry, 2010) This approach is strengthened through historic evidence. The earliest results of formal standardisation proved to what extent voluntary standards can help companies improve processes and save money. BSIs first standard was written for steel sections and published in 1903. It reduced the number of different structural steel sections in common use from 175 to 113. More impressively, varieties of tramway rails in use reduced from 75 to 5. The estimated cost of production reduced across the industry, by 1m, approximately 91m when calculated to contemporary value. (Woodward, 1972) Border and Danvers believed that there were cost advantages to companies complying with standards and evidence seems to back up these claims. Hampson-Jones details anecdotal evidence from BSI of the cost saving Companies find that using standards can reap great benefits as well. He reflects that: Train company First Group reduced energy consumption by 31% using the environmental management standard, ISO 14001. Both LG Electronics India and Shree Cement (SCL) used the European energy management standard EN 16001 to reduce energy consumption by 22 and 2% respectively. Amba Research reduced information security costs by a 33 % using the international information security standard ISO/IEC 27001. (Hampson-Jones, 2011)
Added to these financial benefits, standardisation can benefit have a larger non-financial benefit to a company, engaging the company in the knowledge transfer and management process. De Vries and van Delden identified the importance of standardisation to knowledge management, saying, Nonaka distinguishes individual knowledge, processed by single operators, and shared by members of an organization. By definitions, standards are intended to capture organizational knowledge and they should be used by several people and may also contribute to their individual knowledge. Company standards target one organization (sometimes some of its suppliers) whereas ISO standards target a multitude. Another distinction can be made between external and internal knowledge. External knowledge lies outside the walls of an institution, like knowledge from competitors, consultants and standards bodies like ISO. Internal knowledge is generated in the organization and is easy to access and use. (de Vries & van Delden, 2006) De Vries and van Delden refer to their belief here that standardisation is an important tool for knowledge externalization, turning tacit knowledge-as defined by Nonaka earlier-in to explicit knowledge, however they later go to show that standardisation is far more wide ranging than this. Standardisation is the collation and sharing of both tacit and explicit knowledge to enable the production of aggregated best practise explicit knowledge; refined explicit knowledge. Therefore standardisation is a catalyst for both the externalisation and combination of knowledge. De Vries and van Delden go further, however, and remark that the standardisation committee meetings and the Newell Hampson-Jones
33
sharing of explicit knowledge as well as the practical use later on of this explicit knowledge show that standardisation also benefits the efficient socialization and internalization of knowledge, respectively. This appears to be backed by Swann who noted that standards contribute 2.5bn to UK GDP and specifically said of standards that, There is no doubt that standards, containing as they do a lot of codified knowledge act as important instruments in the dissemination of best practice. They can be seen as essential instrument of technology transfer. (Swann, 2010) Blind and Gauch also believe standardisation is vital to knowledge management, creating a model which specifies how standardisation is vital to the specific potential in research as a knowledge management tool, seen below.
Figure 7 - Standards in the research and innovation process (Blind & Gauch, 2007)
It is clear from this model that standardisation is a vital tool throughout the research, development and diffusion process; however different standard types perform different roles and bring different benefits to the process. Early on standards are needed to understand and transfer knowledge through the basic research in to strategic level research. Statistical measurement standards can convert this knowledge from strategic to applied research, a view which is also backed by Williams who states, Raw data does not give sufficient information to enable anyone to see the overall picture, so the data must be processed to provide the information required. Manager of laboratories and test houses need standard methods for analysing and determining the precision of test results. (Williams, 2010) Interface standards on specific interface practices, like design and cleanliness of laboratories can quicken the research in to the experimental stage at which point interoperability and quality standards-like ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems can ensure this research is diffused into market. Consider Blind and Gauchs research from a macroeconomic perspective and we see further benefits
34
for the wider economy as a platform and catalyst for innovation, enhanced by the knowledge management tools standardisation offers. Swann further qualifies this view, when he asks, How do standards support innovation? We can find several mechanisms at work here. First, standards support the division of labour, and the division of labour supports certain types of innovation activity. Second, open standards can help to open up markets and allow new entrants and as economists know very well, the new entrant is a powerful force for innovation. Third, the existence of generally accepted measurement standards allows the innovative company to prove that its innovative products do indeed have superior performance. And fourth, standards help us derive the greatest value from our networks. Open standards allow innovative entrants to take advantage of network effects, an sell add-ons which are compatible with the core technology and enhance its functionality. (Swann, 2007) This support for standardisation as an innovation catalyst seems further qualified by a 2010 publication from the United Nations International Telecommunication Union (ITU). It keeps the focus on how knowledge management techniques have been fuelling the success of new disruptive technologies but specifically on how standards help new technologies thrive through interoperability. The most fascinating aspect of this document is that it notes the possibility that the role of standardisation in society could be greater in developing countries; enabling and fostering the support of innovations which have access to far fewer resources within these markets, saying: The interoperability afforded by standards enables new forms of knowledge exchange. Interoperability, achieved through agreed upon ICT standards, enables information sharing within governments, between governments and citizens, and more ubiquitously, in the global information society. This type of access provides new avenues for citizens in developing countries to access emerging forms of digital education, medical and health diagnostic information, and to participate more actively in cultural and political life. (International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 2010) This is an important consideration as standards could be a route through which developing countries can support and retain intellectual property which may benefit the local market as a whole. I believe this evidence shows standardisation helps stimulate innovation. At the micro-economic level, a company benefits when a product reaches a far wider market with much lower entry, development and testing costs through following standards during the design and management process. At a macro-economic level, the benefits are also wide ranging. Swann, Temple and Shurmer (1996) found significant advantages to UK international trade through the standardisation process, concluding, One main finding is that UK standards appear to increase UK exports and UK imports, though the effect on exports is stronger than on imports...The second finding is that idiosyncratic UK standards appear to have a stronger positive effect than internationally equivalent standards. (Swann, Temple, & Shurmer, 1996)
35
The fact that standards offer a trade surplus has obvious direct benefit to the economy, especially in current conditions; however the second finding is most striking. UK standards appear to have greater impact than their international comparatives, which could itself add to the trade surplus. In essence, not only is standardisation creating best practice knowledge which is being improving the quality of products exported, but this best practice knowledge could be exported itself, to UK trades benefit. This evidence could be considered to show that standardisation is not just a tool that can, coincidentally, be used in a knowledge management context. Despite being a presence in business practice since 19014, I believe that standardisation is a perfect example of a quad-dimensional knowledge management process. If a company were to participate in the standardisation process, by providing members of staff to take part in the committee activities, one can map the standardisation committee process back to Nonakas model form knowledge creation to show the knowledge management benefits given to the organisation. Externalization and combination occur through the publishing of standards from this process and internalization occurs when the standard is read and implemented by an employee. More importantly, though, for those actually involved in the process internalization occurs much sooner and with far greater understanding, meaning the process is more reliable. The nature of committee meetings and consensus building in the British standardisation process means that socialization is also occurring throughout the process. This implies that knowledge not explicitly captured by the committee can be tacitly captured by the individual committee member and used either personally or externalized within the organisation, independent from the standardisation process. Whilst it can be accepted that this positive benefit is difficult to measure, it nevertheless shows important non-financial benefits of participation in the standardisation process as both a tool and-in the case of the recommendations made later-a template for an organisations knowledge management strategy.
Further information regarding the history of standardisation can be found in Appendix C
36
7.0 Recommendations for Knowledge Management between Generations

I believe the evidence presented in this study so far has shown that knowledge management has a role to play in the modern economy. I dont envisage it to be to be the sole factor in assisting generational transitions within the workplace or the economy, however it could be important in ensuring that as generations leave the workforce, they do not take with them knowledge which would impede organisational and national economic performance. Any solution must look at three key knowledge management areas: the transfer from those generations leaving the workforce, managing of this knowledge by the experienced generation within the workforce, simultaneously creating further knowledge and integrated by the generation entering the workforce. Each proposal will explore how each role is fulfilled by the relevant generation; I have mapped the generations to their roles below:
Figure 8 - The responsibilities of the generations within these proposals
It is important to note that Baby Boomers appear both in the transfer and management roles. This generation is beginning to transition out of the workforce, which presents an urgency that businesses and governments must heed, motivating them to explore how to keep the knowledge gained by this generation. Below I present two solutions. The first, the Generational Knowledge Framework, was originally created to be focused towards macroeconomic policy level, however I also believe it can be scaled down to an organisational framework and so have also explored this possibility. It is a theoretical framework for nations and organisations to manage their knowledge and maintain their competitive economic performance. The Organisation Knowledge Committee is the second recommended proposal and a suggested tool for organisations to manage generational transitions within their company effectively. The intention of this tool is that, whilst it can be complementary to the national framework and improve the organisations performance within that framework, it can be independent of the framework as well. This ensures that if an organisation was within an economy which did not have the Generational Knowledge Framework implemented, it can still ensure its generational knowledge is managed effectively.
37
7.1 Generational Knowledge Framework

Creating a national knowledge framework can be vital for a nations economic performance. Reading back to Drucker such a framework could be considered the appropriate response to his theories on the productivity of knowledge. What I believe should be the biggest concern to a government is when Drucker says, The productivity of knowledge is going to be the determining factor in the competitive position in a company, an industry, an entire country. No country, industry or company has any natural advantage or disadvantage. The only advantage it can possess is the ability to exploit universally available knowledge. The only thing that increasingly will matter in national as in international economics is managements performance in making knowledge productive. (Drucker, 1993) The lack of any natural advantage means that the knowledge economy can become the true leveller between the economies. In order to compete, nations cannot organically grow their own knowledge. Instead a competitive management framework is needed to encourage and nurture the knowledge already existing within the nation but, more importantly, to make that economy preferable for talented knowledge workers and encourage their immigration. I propose the following model can ensure this at a government policy level, however at this level responsibility falls not only upon government, but on the private sector as well. This model can be adapted to an organisational level, with the Organisation Knowledge Committees discussed later on integrated in to the framework. The Generational Knowledge Framework (GKF) can be viewed in two ways; as an economic model or as an organisational model. From the economic perspective, the Generational Knowledge Framework takes the knowledge worker from school leaving age until retirement, managing the possible routes a knowledge worker can take and providing the resources to ensure that the economy and society best benefits from the talent within it. In the organisational sense, the GKF can be used as a guide to chart the career of a knowledge worker within the company to ensure effective maximisation of their knowledge assets.
Explicit Knowledge Absorption
Tacit Knowledge Creation Knowledge Redistribution Time (Years of experience)

Figure 9 - The Generational Knowledge Framework model
As the diagram above shows, this model has 3 stages: explicit knowledge absorption, tacit knowledge creation and knowledge redistribution. Explicit knowledge absorption refers, at the macroeconomic level, to tertiary education, where explicit knowledge is input for the knowledge worker to absorb and integrate. At a national level, this role is vital, equipping the knowledge worker with skills that can be used later on in the workplace which is why I recommend the responsibility of funding and managing this activity rest under government, not the market. Some might find the view of the university being used as a training ground for the Newell Hampson-Jones
38
knowledge economy as a travesty, away from the autonomous nature of the sector discussed earlier; however Davidson looked at the history of the higher education sector and compared the modern structures to the reforms made for the Industrial Revolution, seeing that very few changes had occurred since then. Davidson states, The industrial world of work does not want individuality. It wants workers who know their specialised task and perform it routinely and like clockwork. Especially after Frederick Winslow Taylors famous time and motion studies of the late 19th and early 20th century, efficiency was king and the goal of education was, implicitly and explicitly, to train a future labour force for mass production. (Davidson, 2011) This clearly marries with the way the debate on education has formed, with focus placed purely on the training of students to enter the workforce and the benefit received by the students for the training. If Davidson, quoting later on in the article from the US Bureau of Labor, is right to say that graduates will change careers four to six times within a lifetime and 65 percent of the jobs that will be available upon graduation for students currently entering US high schools dont exist yet, then transferrable knowledge that can later be adapted to become skills becomes vital. For those studying in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) areas, these transferrable skills could come from areas like the humanities where analysis and comprehension are valued and could enable a student to build a foundation of soft skills alongside their more task based skills set. This would be a similar approach to the education system in the US, where the first year of studies is devoted to giving students a broad understanding of a range of subjects to build a foundation of transferrable skills. This knowledge could be the foundation for the knowledge workers future career and their productivity within organisation and the economy. This consideration brings with it a new issue, namely the one of funding which has become so controversial. The transience of the labour market means that social knowledge, as defined by Buchbinder, becomes more valuable for the long term economy. Knowledge demanded by the market is demanded on current data and information; however social knowledge can become the building blocks for future market based innovations. I understand and agree that the market can theoretically bring consumer benefits to students, empowerment through choice being one of the most quoted, but with a labour market so transitory how are students and consumers empowered when the information on offer to make a choice is based on current expectations, with no consideration of future roles that could emerge? The marketised system currently proposed in the UK does not appear to consider this. Furthermore, the evidence presented in chapter five has shown-at the very least-perceptive barriers to entry for possible future knowledge workers. Without intervention, we could see a long term contraction in the knowledge economy, along with the workforce trained for that an economy. I believe we must look past the individual and look at the long term benefits to the economy of funding not only the tuition of future knowledge workers, but the production of social knowledge as a whole. For the UK higher education sector, I am concerned that the proposed changes to the structure that were analysed in chapter five are myopic in their short-term perspective and damaging to the long-term British knowledge economy. Furthermore, I am not confident that such a market based structure is suitably effective for the early stages of this Generational Knowledge Framework. At an organisational level, the explicit knowledge stage can represent training schemes for new Generation Y or Generation Z graduate employees. Like higher education is at the national economic level, this stage will be the foundation of the effectiveness of the employees ability to create new knowledge as well as share that knowledge later on. Newell Hampson-Jones
39
Tacit knowledge creation refers in both the economic and organisational senses as the act of employment. It is during this time that the knowledge worker can create tacit knowledge built on to the explicit knowledge assimilated earlier on. After a significant period of tacit knowledge creation, the employee begins phasing in to the knowledge redistribution stage. This plays more significance as the worker progresses, but they must always maintain the tacit knowledge creation activities in order to maximise possible knowledge creation. In the economic GKF, knowledge redistribution would take the ideal form of engaging in standardisation activities. This would enable the worker to add benefit to the economy and society by creating widely available and used knowledge and ensuring this knowledge is effective. Increasing national standardisation participation could also benefit an organisational GKF framework, due to the benefits detailed in chapter six. In addition to these benefits, the standards produced through participation, and more importantly compliance, would further enhance the organisations explicit knowledge absorption stage for the organisation. There is also the option for the organisation can also internalise the knowledge redistribution process, by creating Organisational Knowledge Committees, which are explained later on in this chapter. One key concern emerging from the Generational Knowledge Framework is to remove the perceptive barriers of entry to higher education as a route in to the knowledge economy; this will be vital to maintaining and improving economic performance and generational knowledge management. It is with this in mind that I believe a fully funded higher education sector can reap far more benefit than a market driven sector. Arguments about the sustainability of the sector must be challenged when the return on investment currently stands at 11-12% (London Economics , 2011). It is highly unlikely, mainly due to political rather than rational reasons, that a publicly funded higher education structure is an attainable prospect in the UK. Looking at the NUS Blueprint in more depth could present a possible solution. I dont believe it is a complete solution to the issues faced by the sector in its current form; however it can be a strong foundation for future analyses through which a system reflecting the changing needs of the economy can be found. This is, obviously a long term ideal and not possible in the current climate. What is possible however is providing evidence to support the generational knowledge framework through a public/private sector scholarship initiative. This scholarship would similar to current schemes where an employer would pay for a students tuition fees and offer a maintenance bursary in return for the student being contracted to work for them for a period of time. The scholarship system I propose would see a STEM company guaranteeing post-study employment, but the government would fund the fees as well as offer a maintenance bursary. The student would need to be contractually obliged to meet conditions for both the government and the employer. To the government, the student would be obliged to study the full length of the course and, after gaining a pre-determined amount of experience (roughly 5-10 years) would begin participating within the national standardisation sector for a previously set minimum amount of time. To the employer, the student would be contracted to work for a set period of time. The scholarship could be managed by the student loans company, with the caveat that if the student were to break the contract, they would have to repay the amount received in real terms through the same loans system as other graduates, but with no prospect of the debt being written off. It may appear that the employer is reaping the most benefit, however the STEM sector has a shortfall of qualified employees as many graduates decide to move in to non-STEM jobs, an issue that has been of serious concern to the government (Mellors-Bourne, Connor, & Jackson, 2011) for which the solution could come through knowledge management strategies.
7.2 Organisational Knowledge Committees

Organisational Knowledge Committees (OKC) are intended to mirror standardisation committees discussed in chapter six and create committees for knowledge sharing within the organisation. These committees can be complimentary to an organisational GKF, with experience generations sharing tacit and explicit knowledge with incoming generations who may offer a different perspective which can benefit the organisation. As the diagram below shows: Newell Hampson-Jones
40
HR Mkg
SM
Law Fin
Organisational Knowledge Committee
Figure 10 - Organisational Knowledge Committee model
Each department of the business has an experienced representative within the group. In the case of the diagram above, the committee has experienced knowledge workers from Marketing (Mkg in the diagram above) and Human Resources (HR) alongside the legal and financial departments (Law & Fin respectively). The committee must including one member of the senior management (SM) who will act as the chair, overseeing and navigating proceedings. Selection criteria for the experienced representatives should not be chosen by how long they have been within the company; this could result in the committee becoming too introspective and damaging its knowledge creation potential. The basis of selection for the experienced panel should be that the employee has over a set number of years relevant work experience. I would also recommend that whilst the departments represented should be static, the people representing departments should be changed for each meeting, ideally selected through a randomised system. This means that as much perspective and new knowledge is brought in to the process as possible. These employees would then sit with randomly selected employees with less than 5 years work for the process of knowledge creation on an agenda set by the senior manager and previous committees. The focus of each committee meeting should be a one day workshop focused on producing, through consensus, an agreed report to be distributed to the company. In creating this report the Organisational Knowledge Committee, like a standards committee, manages to ensure all knowledge creation elements defined by Nonaka are present during the day. Similar to the process described in chapter six, externalization, internalization and combination all occur connected with the reports creation and socialization and internalization are vital to successful consensus building. It would be hoped that free, open discussion and debate can create new knowledge which can be considered for implementation within the organisation, ideally offering individuals similar autonomy to universities within the committee. In many ways, the process is intended to create social knowledge tailored for the organisations culture. There is the possibility that the meeting could spawn further actions and policy or process documents to be created. The role of the senior manager in these cases would be to decide how to proceed, with either the committee becoming a project team or individuals being required to complete the arising task. I believe there would be a number of benefits attached to the Organisational Knowledge Committees. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, the OKC could be a vital part of any graduate scheme or the induction of labour market entrants to the organisation, solidifying their Explicit Knowledge creation, but also assisting their tacit knowledge creation by teaching and using skills that may not be present when seeking consensus and debating issues. Integrating the Organisational Knowledge Committees could add motivation for the employee; giving them the impression of empowerment and collaboration to the strategic decisions of the company. As stated in chapter four, keeping Gen Y and Gen Z employees motivated could invoke the trait shared within these generations of recommending the organisation to other talented knowledge workers. Newell Hampson-Jones
41
This proposal could also play a significant positive bearing on any generational conflicts, like the one seen in Ericksons work. In the case study, a Generation Y employee, Josh, felt their manager, Sarah, was stymieing their progress by excluding his ideas. Josh later disclosed the idea to a senior manager, Sam, who liked the idea. Unknown to Sam, there were contextual reasons why it was not the best option for that situation, hence Sarahs refusal to accept the suggestion in the first place which now had to be navigated, causing more work and reducing productivity. It was, as Erickson puts it: A classic case of impatient Generation Y meets pay your dues Generation X (Erickson, 2009) There are a number of issues with the relationship that are tackled by the case study, but I also believe an Organisation Knowledge Committee could have helped prevent these issues arising. Had the company an OKC programme, Josh may have already raised his idea there. If he hadnt, Sarah may have succeeded in managing Joshs expectations by suggesting that the idea should be taken to the committee, noting it has positive aspects and explaining the reasons why it was not apt at present. Encouraged, Josh could present the idea to Sam and other employees who would either create the contextual knowledge to allow this suggestion to be implemented or reach an understanding why it cannot and begin the process of fixing the issues preventing implementation. If the decision is reported and distributed to all employees, the project could be assisted by another employee who has knowledge which could contribute to the solution. In short, the Organisational Knowledge Committee could be the impetus for many possible routes of long term knowledge creation and create an environment very similar to, if not mirroring a learning organisation. As well as these internal benefits an Organisational Knowledge Committee can bring external befits to an organisation that is already involved in standardisation activities. As the process itself mirrors the standardisation committees detailed in chapter six, the Organisational Knowledge Committee can act as a mirror committee for any work currently in progress. The organisations employees can comment on national standardisation activities and possibly make a difference to the industry, not just the organisation which, if successful, can greatly increase the motivational benefits mentioned above. This also means an indirect benefit occurs to the national economy if organisations put in place Organisational Knowledge Committees, through increased indirect consensus in the process. The recommendations made here are exploratory by nature and, whilst some are less than likely under current conditions, I believe there are proposals that can be quickly initiated in the short term to bring benefit to the economy and to organisational performance. I feel the Generational Knowledge Framework can be vital in ensuring national knowledge economies build a competitive advantage, although understand the limitations that currently exist. With that consideration, the scholarship which mirrors the GKF is a far more pertinent solution which can also provide evidence which will back or disprove the framework. I also believe Organisational Knowledge Committees hold great potential for defining an organisations culture and increase and benefit that organisations knowledge creation and management strategies.
42
8.0 Conclusions
It was earlier declared that generations can take with them the knowledge they have created. I set this study with three objectives, focused on discovering how knowledge management can be used to prevent this happening as the generations transition and, more specifically, how the higher education and standardisation sectors can both contribute and bring benefits to knowledge management strategies that may arise. On analysis of the evidence presented, I believe there is a clear connection between all these factors and that, when managed effectively, higher education and standardisation can combine within a framework to manage the transition of knowledge between generations. The Generational Knowledge Framework establishes a route for a knowledge worker, showing how they can traverse from higher education, through employment and into the standardisation process to the benefit of the employee, the organisation and that knowledge economy. In mapping these links, the need to analyse traits of each area that affect the wider framework arises, bringing with it further recommendations and conclusions. Higher education has a role to play as a training ground for knowledge workers and whilst I accept that to some the idea of higher education being framed in this way is horrific, evidence shows the historical role of HE was just that. This does not mean that the idea of education for educations sake has no relevance; in fact it is very relevant. The economy that workers are entering into has changed and continues to do so. The role of higher education continues to be training of the workforce but the method has to change. It needs to offer a far broader foundation of knowledge which can be transferrable as the knowledge economy evolves under new generations. This means the higher education sector is far more important for generational knowledge management that pure skills based training should be integrated with traditionally soft skills based education, like the arts and the humanities. This more rounded understanding can improve knowledge creation and impart soft skills which can fuel innovation. For higher education to fulfil its potential funding is going to need to be addressed. From the perspective of this study, the proposals are inadequate to ensure the benefits of higher education are maximised. Perceived barriers to entry are present, meaning talented workers may decide against the higher education route and not fulfil their potential. Furthermore, the argument of empowering the consumer falls when the argument being made is purely based on financial evidence. The student as consumer is far more likely to pure direct skills based education as this could be perceived to maximise their rate of return later on. The knowledge management perspective, however, disputes this view, as the lack of soft skills will hamper knowledge creation and innovation. As I mentioned in chapter seven, it is unlikely that full government funding will ever return, however the NUS Blueprint presents an interesting line for further study which could see a more workable system in place which considers not just the financial benefits, but the economic knowledge management factors. It should also be remembered that higher education is one of the major national knowledge creation vehicles, requiring funding from multiple sources to produce both market and social knowledge. One other vehicle for knowledge creation and management is the standardisation sector. Standardisation plays a role at the opposite end of the generational knowledge management paradigm. Where higher education is more focused on training a new generation how to understand and use knowledge, standardisation is concerned with distributing the knowledge from previous generations to ensure it is not lost. At its purest definition, standardisation is a knowledge creation tool and, if participation in the process by knowledge workers was high within an economy, a vitally positive tool for that economy. This participation also directly benefits the participants as organisations have access to the explicit knowledge, their employees have the potential to gain and bring into the Newell Hampson-Jones
43
organisation tacit knowledge. If the standardisation committee process can be mirrored within an organisation, it can be a knowledge creation tool to harness the tacit knowledge within. Further benefits through standardisation arises through compliance, which has a large economic contribution, but also an immediate organisational financial benefit which can come through cost savings as well as increased revenues stemming from possible marketing and branding advantages that are attached to the compliance to a standard. The benefits of standardisation, as well as higher education are mostly measured in financial terms and this is where I feel issues arise in that not enough research looks at non-financial benefits in both sectors. Standardisation is a very thinly researched subject and I would recommend that further study in needed in a number of related areas. One example would be to measure the practical act of standardisation against the objectives of the concept. Standardisation can be a knowledge management tool to create knowledge and benefit generational transition. It would be interesting to see qualitative research examining whether the process fulfils that role and, if not, how it differs, what issues arise and how this issue can be prevented. Higher education research could explore the importance of the sector in non-financial terms could provide evidence to support funding of social knowledge projects which have a wider benefit away from the market as well as projects which support generational transition, like the scholarship project in the recommendations. There also appears to be opportunity for continuing research in to the subject of knowledge management between generations which widens the scope of this study; looking further than higher education and standardisation. Research looking at further education, pre-tertiary education and the role technology has played in generational transition could present a wider panorama of the role knowledge management can play and create new frameworks, recommendations and solutions which can complement or contradict the conclusions of this study. I am absolutely convinced that in meeting the objectives set for this research, only further questions have arose which require us to consider seriously the role of knowledge management between generations.
44
Appendix A The Higher Education Structure in England

Whilst the standardisation industry can be considered very stoic and stable, the higher education sector within England is at a crossroads. With criticisms levelled from many directions, some institutions are being called to justify their existence and others, their practice. A debate over the purpose of higher education has raged through areas of society with no sign of abating. Prior to entering this debate I feel it is important to contextualise and understand the conditions of the sector as they currently stand and examine the proposed journey ahead for the affected institutions. The UK Higher Education sector lies within the public sector, but is unique in that the institutions within it are autonomous; not owned by the state, but in receipt of government funding to operate. Each institution manages its own degree award standards with respective internal management processes; however the power to award degrees and the authority for an institution to call itself a university are both legally protected, bestowed upon institutions by the Privy Council. These decisions are influenced and managed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) an external and independent body evaluating the maintenance of academic standards in universities. (Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 2010) This funding issue is particularly difficult due to the devolution of powers meaning the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament direct their respective universities funding and the United Kingdom Parliament oversees the English and Northern Irish institutions. Funding is set by the Parliaments and distributed through various national funding bodies, as the diagram below shows.
Figure 11 - Funding in UK Higher Education (Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 2004)
For the sake of focus, this research will follow recent debates and concentrate upon the English branch of the sector, which is currently under the remit of the Department of Business Innovation & Skills (BIS formerly the Department for Education and Skills, as seen above). The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) distributes the funds allocated by BIS within the broad policy guidelines of the Secretary of State, who-at the time of writing-is The Right Honourable Vince Cable MP. On Newell Hampson-Jones
45
occasion, HEFCE can advise the Secretary of State on funding matters, but they have no authority upon which to set any funding levels. Funds from HEFCE are distributed to 253 institutions of which 123 are further education colleges, providing higher education courses, and 130 are higher education institutions (HEIs) to support teaching, research and related activities. In setting out their methodology for granting these fees, HEFE say, Institutions receive most of their funding as a block grant. They are free to spend according to their own priorities within our broad guidelines. We do not expect them to model their internal allocations on our calculations because they are autonomous bodies that set their own strategic priorities. (Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2010) The issue of autonomy is a vital one for the higher education sector as it is one so staunchly defended. Some could claim that the defence of this independence can create an over-defensive hostility to responsibility. HEFCE are quick to point out that despite autonomy there still exists accountability, both to them and to Parliament as well as clarifying HEIs ability to source additional funding: Institutions are accountable to HEFCE, and ultimately to Parliament, for the way they use funds received from us. As independent bodies, they also receive funding from many different public and private sources. This gives them scope to pursue activities alongside those for which they receive HEFCE funds. (Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2010) HEFCEs assertion that HEIs receive funds from a variety of sources, adding that their funding makes up less than forty percent of the sectors income and student tuition fees are usually another main source of funding, is interesting when one considers the timing of this report. The QAA had earlier been criticised for not holding to account enough the universities under its remit and not showing enough transparency of its academic standards processes (Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, 2009), however this report has been disputed within the sector and the organisation itself with the Chief Executive, Anthony McClaran saying, It wasn't describing a sector I could recognise. It seemed to be placing a great weight on a narrow evidence base. (Curtis, 2009) With such a politically charged subject this isnt the first, nor will it be the last, report on higher education to be criticised for narrow evidence gathering. Part of the consternation fuelling the critical committee paper appears to stem from the issue of funding the sector. The final paper was censorious of the defensiveness of some university heads when challenged on their levels of academic standards. It went so far as to take the telling step of making specific note of the role the public purse has in the sectors financing, despite standards measurement not appearing to be intrinsically linked to funding. The committee declared:
46
It is unacceptable for the sector to be in receipt of departmental spending of 15 billion but be unable to answer a straightforward question about the relative standards of the degrees of the students, which the taxpayer has paid for. (Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, 2009) This is not a lone example of the sectors financial structure being used to place political pressure upon it. Brown expressed concern at the scrutiny the sector is being put under, defending the British quality control systems as some of the most elaborate globally with many institutions receiving positive feedback; feedback which is backed by student evaluations and surveys as well. But there issues, which the article points to, when Brown says, Whilst some of the problem areas, such as grade inflation, are relatively recent, others, notably external examining and assessment, are of long standing. Moreover, the imminent intensification of competition allied to an almighty resources squeeze will test both institutional and external quality-control mechanisms as never before. It must be seriously questionable whether the limited, incremental and frankly muddled programme of work set in train by the Funding Council, the sector and the QAA will prove adequate in these circumstances. We may be back at all this again before very long. (Brown, 2010) Brown again brings to the foreground the issue of funding and its apparent dislocation from the management of academic standards. Browns assessment was to prove to be accurate in the months following this article. The role of public funds in the higher education sector had already been under increased scrutiny from a range of perspectives in recent months, some sympathetic and some critical.
47
Appendix B The role of mission groups in higher education

The article enclosed below from Times Higher Education details the role mission groups play in the higher education and their influence. It should be noted that Teesside University joined University Alliance in 2010 and are believed to be affiliated with both UA and million+
Do you want to be in my gang?

19 November 2009 Some say mission groups help air vital issues collegially, but others think they selfishly expose the sector to divide-and-rule tactics. Melanie Newman looks at the group dynamics Academic disputes are so bitter, goes the old saw, because there's so little at stake. The number of such spats might be expected to grow as academics are asked to demonstrate their value in a time of shrinking resources. Institutions, too, face calls to deliver more with less, but individual universities can be counted on to refrain from sniping at each other publicly. Despite recent exhortations by the Government and the Confederation of British Industry for the sector to become more competitive, institutions tend to depart from an Oxbridge-style gentlemanly rivalry only when a takeover is mooted. Under questioning by MPs on the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee earlier this year about the comparability of degrees between universities, not a single vice-chancellor broke ranks to proclaim the superiority of his or her courses. Suggestions that any new quality assurance regime should focus more on some parts of the sector than others were never voiced publicly. Such discretion suggests that the sector as a whole would act collegially in these straitened economic times, suppressing private differences to present an image of unity before the Government and the public. The websites of the five university mission groups - the Russell Group, the 1994 Group, the University Alliance, Million+ and GuildHE - give few indications that this is not the case. Only the Russell Group, in a set of "aims and objectives" that makes frequent references to "leading universities", hints at rivalries. Libby Aston, the new director of the University Alliance and former director of research at the Russell Group, says the groups "support and reflect the diversity in the sector rather than being in direct competition with each other". They support the work of Universities UK, the vice-chancellors' forum, by "bringing universities more closely into the policymaking process in order to improve it", she adds. But events this year suggest that the groups' relationships with one another and with UUK may be a little more complicated. In spring, the Russell Group threatened to leave UUK after the latter announced plans to put up its annual subscription fee. UUK has declined to reveal its fees, but the University of Leeds has disclosed that it pays 51,000, while Lancaster University is charged 26,000. Some Russell Group members are understood to have argued that their subscription money would be better spent on strengthening the mission group's own position.
48
Rick Trainor, principal of King's College London and a former UUK president, called an emergency meeting, gave a rallying speech and peace reigned - for a while. This summer, after heavy lobbying from Million+, the Government offered 10,000 additional student places to the sector without extra funding in a bid to accommodate some of the large numbers of students who had been denied entry to university. Times Higher Education understands that UUK was initially planning to accept the extra numbers, but the Russell Group and the 1994 Group argued that this would be tantamount to accepting a cut in the unit of resource - the cash sum universities are given, per student, for teaching. The newer universities maintained that the unfunded places were a one-off response to an usual situation and agreed to take them. As the new term began and the extent of the funding cuts the sector was likely to face became clearer, tensions mounted. One vice-chancellor from a Million+ institution accused universities of acting like "turkeys fighting over who will get it at Christmas". Malcolm McVicar, vice-chancellor of the University of Central Lancashire, told Times Higher Education that the sector was divided internally. "The mission groups reflect the divisions that exist and might be exacerbating them," he said. A month later, Michael Arthur, head of the Russell Group, argued that giving research money to universities other than the 25-30 top institutions amounted to funding "mediocrity". He said that 90 per cent of research funding should be concentrated on this elite: giving any more to the rest would "come at a price". But Andrew Wathey, vice-chancellor of Northumbria University and deputy chairman of the University Alliance, accused the Russell Group of inciting "unfounded panic" and said funding research based on "heritage" was a sure path to mediocrity. Marie-Elisabeth Deroche-Miles, a senior lecturer in English at the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne in France, has just completed a paper on the UK university mission groups, which is due to be published next year. She offers a theory about why the groups are so much more combative than their members. She says: "Individual institutions can't denigrate each other publicly for many reasons: political correctness, possible fear of litigation, a possibility that the media may see the attacked institution as the underdog and support it." Neither would universities wish to sully their "incredibly smooth and well-polished fronts" with petty digs at one another, she adds. They leave the "dirty work" to the mission groups. "My prediction is that the fiercer the competition becomes between higher education institutions in the current market context, the more outspoken their various representatives are going to be." The mission groups exist to highlight the differences between parts of the sector, Deroche-Miles adds. If they are not sufficiently vocal, they will lose their raison d'etre. "It is in their intrinsic interest to air their positions clearly and often enough that member institutions keep recognising themselves in the message and keep belonging." Deroche-Miles believes the groups are a negative influence in the sector. "Their propensity to hire professional communicators, to sometimes adopt the language of businesses competing for the same market and to defend fairly aggressively the agenda of particular sections of the higher education sector is now promoting disharmony rather than just mere diversity," she says, adding that the Government will not be slow to exploit these divisions. Sir David Watson, professor of higher education management at the Institute of Education, suggests that by undermining an unspoken agreement among universities to maintain one another's reputations, the mission groups could damage the sector's future success and autonomy. In his new book, The Question of Morale: Managing Happiness and Unhappiness in University Life, he writes: "What lies behind much of the historical success of the UK sector is the concept of a controlled reputational range. It is important that institutions at each end of the reputational pecking order can recognise each other, and have something tied up in each other's
49
success. The self-appointed 'gangs' in the system don't help much in this respect. For them, 'autonomy' is mostly bound up in getting a third party (the Government) to restrict the freedom of manoeuvre of their rivals." He points to the jockeying that has taken place after each research assessment exercise - "for which 2008 is no exception". Criticism also comes from Rob Cuthbert, professor of higher education management at the University of the West of England. Watson's description of the groups as gangs "captures the mentality and posturing very well", he says. "It's about 'respect' and avoiding being 'dissed'. That was notably true for Million+ in its earlier CMU (Coalition of Modern Universities and later Campaign for Mainstream Universities) days. Now that it's a think-tank, it is much closer to being what a useful pressure group should be." Cuthbert characterises the Russell Group as suffering from a "reverse Groucho Marx syndrome - these are universities that want to belong to a club that only has members like them". The 1994 Group is "like the Football League Championship - everyone knows there's a Premier League, but they use a label that avoids the issue". For the University Alliance, "it's more about not being left out. If the others are all in gangs, the alliance wants to be in one too, even though they aren't so sure where their own neighbourhood is." He looks most favourably on GuildHE, which he sees as "less interested in division and more like a real mission group on retreat, finding gentler ways to engage". Mission groups are not representative constituencies, he stresses, and should not be treated as such by the Government: "They are pressure groups, pure and simple." That point was behind the disquiet with which some in the sector greeted the recent appointment of the Russell Group's director-general, Wendy Piatt, to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills advisory panel on New Industry, New Jobs, Universities and Skills, albeit in a personal capacity. "We should protect our ability to discuss policy issues collectively within UUK or other fully representative bodies," Cuthbert says. "The groups are developing in different ways, but the growth of activity within group boundaries may weaken cross-sector collaboration and exchange on such core issues as teaching and learning, widening participation and even on how students' unions are developing." A few years ago, UUK floated a proposal for a new structure that included mission groups as "constituencies". The membership threw out the idea. In future, regional higher education associations may play a bigger part in UUK, Cuthbert suggests. "Although their effectiveness varies between regions, they do have universities of all kinds sitting around one table." But would the sector be better off without mission groups? Many students and academics have never heard of them, suggesting that any animosity created by their competitiveness is having little effect on the ground. Alice Hynes, GuildHE's chief executive, admits: "Most colleagues and even senior policy staff, if asked to put all universities into their mission groups, would get it wrong." Many would be surprised to learn that Durham University is not in the Russell Group and that the University of Hertfordshire and Liverpool John Moores University are in not Million+ but the University Alliance, she adds. Julius Weinberg, who as acting vice-chancellor of the unaffiliated City University London has no conflicts of interest, says it is inevitable that groups will form in a sector as large and diverse as Britain's. "We have to be realistic. We do have to be careful that the common interest isn't damaged; but I think the sector is mature enough to deal with competition between groups, and UUK is good at drawing institutions' attention when it starts getting out of hand."
50
A few years ago, he says, there was talk that the groups would put UUK out of business. "Now there's an acceptance that we still need UUK and if it wasn't there we'd have to invent it." If the mission groups' rise is inevitable, so is the decline of UUK as the dominant voice of higher education. As Bahram Bekhradnia, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, says: "On so many issues it is impossible for UUK to adopt a position because of the diverse interests of its members." He is a supporter of the mission groups. "You could see them as a testament to the diversity of our higher education sector," he says. "The difference between Rose Bruford College - a wonderful place - and the University of Oxford is immense, and it is inevitable that they will have different interests and that a single body will be unable to represent them." Jeroen Huisman, director of the International Centre for Higher Education Management at the University of Bath, agrees. "When the members of UUK do unite and agree on a position, what comes out is often a weak signal to government, or mere lip service. It will say 'higher education is important', and we're left thinking: what do universities actually want here? "I see it as a good thing that the Russell Group stands up and makes a plea for a certain point and Million+ argues from a different perspective," says Huisman. "Then at least we know that there is something to debate." Paul Marshall, executive director of the 1994 Group, concurs, arguing that mission groups speak out when no one else will. In 2006, the 1994 Group admitted that some universities needed to focus more attention on teaching. It founded an annual "student experience" conference jointly with the National Union of Students. At a fringe meeting at this year's Conservative Party Conference, Wes Streeting, the NUS president, condemned the mission groups for pursuing a self-interested agenda, but he praised the conference. Marshall continues: "With their recent comments on the need for research concentration; for additional student numbers; and the reliance of UK higher education on international student recruitment, (vice-chancellors) Michael Arthur, Les Ebdon and Paul Wellings opened up recognisably controversial debates, but ones that clearly needed to be had." He concludes: "Would it really have been better for the sector if they had all remained silent?"
Influential voices Universities do not wish to sully their incredibly smooth and well-polished fronts with petty digs at each other. They leave the dirty work to the mission groups RUSSELL GROUP Chair: Michael Arthur, vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds Director-general: Wendy Piatt Subscriptions: 35,000 Number of members: 20 The Russell Group of research-intensive institutions, most of which have medical schools, was formed in 1994 by a group of vice-chancellors who held a meeting at the Hotel Russell in London. "Many would say that their objective was pure and simple: to make sure that the new universities did not get their hands on research and other funding," says one senior source who asked not to be named. No university has left the group since its inception, but several have joined subsequently, including King's College London and Cardiff University in 1998 and Queen's University Belfast in 2006.
51
In 2006, the Russell Group "professionalised" by appointing Wendy Piatt director-general, with a remit to set up an organisation (officially a company limited by guarantee) to produce research and evidence-based policy. Piatt says: "If we are going to promote a greater understanding of the needs, priorities and importance of world-class research universities, we have to produce the evidence and clear information." Most of the group's research is not disseminated publicly, and it relies heavily on behind-the-scenes influence with the Government and the Labour Party. Piatt used to work in Tony Blair's strategy unit; her PA, Carol Glenn, worked for Labour MP Diane Abbott; and former research fellow Sarah Chaytor is the daughter of MP David Chaytor, currently suspended from the party in the wake of the expenses scandal. Policy analyst Julie Tam has worked as an adviser to the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills; and Elizabeth Hayward, wife of Peter Hain MP, has handled recruitment for the group in the past. While Daniel O'Connor, the group's press and external relations officer, previously headed the Westminster office of Stephen Williams, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Universities Secretary, sector sources have suggested that the group's links with the Conservatives have suffered because of its close connection with Labour. The Russell Group rejects the mission group label. "We tend to use the phrase 'representative/membership organisation' to describe ourselves," a spokesman says. University of Birmingham University of Bristol University of Cambridge Cardiff University University of Edinburgh University of Glasgow Imperial College London King's College London University of Leeds University of Liverpool London School of Economics University of Manchester Newcastle University University of Nottingham University of Oxford Queen's University Belfast University of Sheffield University of Southampton University College London University of Warwick UNIVERSITY ALLIANCE Chair: Janet Beer, vice-chancellor of Oxford Brookes University Director: Libby Aston Subscriptions: 10,000 Number of members: 22 The group started out in 2006 as the Alliance of Non-Aligned Universities, a group of 18 universities that defined themselves by not belonging to the other mission groups. It later became the University Alliance, with 23 members.
52
Three institutions have since left (including Cranfield University and the Institute of Education) and two have joined. This year, Libby Aston, formerly director of research at the Russell Group, became director of the alliance. Members of the group are sometimes seen as disparate, but Aston says they are all "actively engaged in their economic and social environments with close links to the professions and new industries and have a deep-rooted commitment to access through flexible provision". She continues: "Mission groups play a valuable role in supporting the work of Universities UK through bringing universities more closely into the policymaking process in order to improve it." Aberystwyth University Bournemouth University University of Bradford De Montfort University University of Glamorgan University of Gloucestershire University of Hertfordshire University of Huddersfield University of Lincoln Liverpool John Moores University Manchester Metropolitan University Northumbria University Nottingham Trent University The Open University Oxford Brookes University University of Plymouth University of Portsmouth University of Salford Sheffield Hallam University University of Wales Institute, Cardiff University of Wales, Newport University of the West of England MILLION+ Chairman: Les Ebdon, vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire Chief executive: Pam Tatlow Subscriptions: Million+ declined to say, but fees are understood to be about 20,000 Number of members: 28 The Coalition of Modern Universities formed in 1997 and changed its name to Campaign for Mainstream Universities in 2004. It brought together vice-chancellors from the post-1992 universities who wanted to persuade Universities UK to take on their concerns. (To date only one UUK president, Roderick Floud, has come from a post-1992 university.) In 2007, the CMU rebranded itself as a think-tank, Million+, and has since published a series of reports. Pam Tatlow, its chief executive, says: "There are risks in the sector being divided, and there would be merit in the mission groups and UUK uniting around common causes. However, there are hierarchies in current funding regimes that encourage different priorities. While these remain, interest groups are likely to continue.
53
"We have recognised the disadvantages of a mission-group approach by refocusing as a university think-tank." University of Abertay Dundee Anglia Ruskin University Bath Spa University University of Bedfordshire Birmingham City University University of Bolton Bucks New University University of Central Lancashire Coventry University University of Derby University of East London Glasgow Caledonian University University of Greenwich Kingston University Leeds Metropolitan University London Metropolitan University London South Bank University Middlesex University Napier University University of Northampton Roehampton University Southampton Solent University Staffordshire University University of Sunderland University of Teesside Thames Valley University University of the West of Scotland University of Wolverhampton GUILDHE Chair: Ruth Farwell, vice-chancellor of Bucks New University Chief executive: Alice Hynes Subscriptions: 11,000-30,000 Number of members: 21 The Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) was formed in 1991 by heads of colleges offering higher education programmes. Some SCOP members left the group when these colleges were given taught degree-awarding powers. In 2006, SCOP became GuildHE. Three of its current members do not belong to Universities UK. "GuildHE is not a mission group," says Alice Hynes, chief executive. The body is one of three formal representative bodies (alongside UUK and the Association of Colleges) that the Government consults when it wants a response on cross-sector issues such as swine flu and the new immigration rules. Hynes says: "We would all be better served by taking a common stance, creating a common front and delivering a few simple messages ... in the 'HE ecology', it is unwise to damage parts of the system that are underpinning the whole."
54
Arts University College Bournemouth Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln Bucks New University Harper Adams University College Leeds Trinity University College Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts Newman University College Norwich University College of the Arts Ravensbourne College of Design and Communication Rose Bruford College Royal Agricultural College St Mary's University College Twickenham University College Birmingham University College Falmouth University College Plymouth St Mark and St John University for the Creative Arts University of Cumbria University of Winchester University of Worcester Writtle College York St John University UNAFFILIATED UNIVERSITIES Robin Baker, vice-chancellor of the University of Chichester, says: "One might naively assume that the richness of UK universities' geographical spread, their combined turnover, the number of people (ie, voters) they employ and serve, the sector's profile internationally, not to mention the scale of its contribution to the nation in terms of knowledge, must make it an extraordinarily powerful direct influence on government thinking and policy. "The reality is, of course, different. It does not take any politician or senior civil servant long to recognise that there are few more fertile environments to try out divide-and-rule tactics than higher education. "This is not a sector that is cohesive. The existence of the lobby groups (crudely characterised as 'we are the best', 'we are almost as good', 'we are better than you think' and 'it's size that matters and that's us') that co-exist with Universities UK (and GuildHE) simply advertises this." Aston University University of Aberdeen Bangor University University of Brighton Brunel University Canterbury Christ Church University University of Chester University of Chichester City University London Cranfield University University of Dundee Edge Hill University Glyndwr University Heriot-Watt University University of Hull
55
Keele University University of Kent University of Wales, Lampeter Liverpool Hope University Queen Margaret University The Robert Gordon University University of Stirling University of Strathclyde Swansea University University of the Arts London University of Westminster 1994 GROUP Chairman: Paul Wellings, vice-chancellor of Lancaster University Executive director: Paul Marshall Subscriptions: 20,000 Total members: 19 The first meeting of the "small and beautiful group" of research-intensive universities (without medical schools) was held in 1994 at the Reform Club; the vice-chancellors of the universities of Durham, East Anglia, Essex, Lancaster, Sussex and York were present. A few months later, the '94 Group was formed with six other universities. In May 1997, it changed its named to the 1994 Group. The London School of Economics and the University of Warwick have left the group since 2006 to join the Russell Group. The most recent entrant is the Institute of Education. Paul Marshall, who was named executive director in 2006, says the group was formed by the older universities as a response to polytechnics gaining university status. "It made sense to come together to see if they could establish clear mutual positions on important policy and funding issues." The group became a formal lobbying organisation in 2005 in advance of the introduction of tuition fees. "We work closely with Universities UK," Marshall says. "The 1994 Group can magnify the power of (UUK's) collective message through our own lobbying." University of Bath Birkbeck, University of London Durham University University of East Anglia University of Essex University of Exeter Goldsmiths, University of London Institute of Education, University of London Lancaster University University of Leicester Loughborough University Queen Mary, University of London University of Reading Royal Holloway, University of London
56
University of St Andrews School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London University of Surrey University of Sussex University of York.
(Newman, 2009)
57
Appendix C Standardisation in Historical Context

Human society has understood the need for creating measurement systems since its inception. The earliest discovered examples of such systems were found excavating artefacts of the Indus Valley Civilization, existing between of 3000-1500 BC. Their measurements for length, mass and time are considered extremely precise and have been influential throughout the maturation of society; the weighting units were approximately 28 grammes, making them similar to the Imperial ounce. (The New World Encyclopaedia, 2009) Within the first Magna Carta of 1215, standard measurements held significance, with clause 35 stating: There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russet, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardized similarly. (British Library , 2011) As these instances show, standardisation as concept and need existed long before the first standards were written. These examples, however, are difficult to consider pure standards. For a start, they were, to their contemporaries, legislative measures to aid a societys performance. One could argue that they are those societies contemporary equivalence to fiscal policy as tools to harness socio-economic efficiency. Standardisation in its current form grew out of needs established by the British Industrial Revolution. From 1850 onwards, the emerging British rail network changed the face of trade in the country. Previously, markets had been local and the rail lines being built offered producers the ability to transport goods into new markets and collaborate nationally with other suppliers. As Woodward points out: Now the engineering shops of Birmingham, the steel mills of Sheffield, the cotton looms of Manchester had all Britain on their doorsteps and beyond England there were further markets to conquer in all the other countries of Europe which, with England, were thrusting forward with their own railway networks and industrial development. (Woodward, 1972) Whilst the emergence of the rail lines was a positive economic catalyst for the UK economy, it also created a number of problems: The diversity of the sizes and quality of products made in different regions increased the risk for businesses to order from outside their locality and damaged competition and efficiency. Matching components bought from different regions together to form a whole unit could very rarely be done without costly adjustment. A letter to The Times in 1895, presenting the example of a contractor who had to procure iron girders from Belgium to complete an order, encouraged London iron merchant Henry Skelton to write:
58
Rolled steel girders are imported into Britain from Belgium and Germany because we have too much individualism in this country, where collective action would be economically advantageous. As a result, architects and engineers specify such unnecessary diverse types of sectional material for given work that anything like economical and continuous manufacture becomes impossibleno two professional men are agreed upon the size and weight of girder to employ for given work and the British manufacturer is everlastingly changing his rolls or appliance, at greatly increased cost, to meet irregular unscientific requirements of professional architects and engineers. (Woodward, 1972) Skeltons letter was the catalyst for a number of acts which resulted, on April 26th 1901, in the first meeting of the Engineering Standards Committee, formed with two representatives each from the Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Institution of Naval Architects and the Iron and Steel Institute. The intention was clear. This was a non-legislative method of creating agreed best practices within industry, created by industry. It was self-regulation for increased efficiency. The Institution of Civil Engineers later became the British Standards Institution (BSI) and in 2002, became the UKs National Standards Body (NSB) (British Standards Institution (BSI), 2011c). Within the focus of this study reference to standardisation will focus on 3 organisations in particular; BSI, the European Standards body CEN/CENELEC and the international standardisation body, ISO. The European Committee for Standardisation (Comit Europen de Normalisation; CEN) is the European standards body, comprising of member states in Europe. CEN is the only recognized European organization according to Directive 98/34/EC for the planning, drafting and adoption of European Standards (EN) in all areas of economic activity with the exception of electro technology and telecommunication. ISO (International Organization for Standardisation) is the world's largest developer and publisher of international standards. The organization is a network of national standards bodies from 163 countries, allowing only one member per country. BSI was a founding member of both organisations and can still exert influence on their practices. All three organisations are non-governmental, however the work produced generally bridges the areas of the public and private sector where legislation and formal regulation would be detrimental, but free market individualism could lead to widespread inefficiencies. In some cases the work can be started by government mandate, but in many cases work is driven by the self-aware industry- an industry aware of the need to collaborate for corporate social responsibility or efficiency reasons.
59
Appendix D Categories of British, European and International Standards
60
(British Standards Institution (BSI), 2009)
61
Bibliography
1994 Group. (2010). Review of Higher Education Funding & Student Finance Phase 2: Call for Proposals. Submission from the 1994 Group. London: 1994 Group. Abrahams, J. (2010, November 24). Islamic students challenge student loan plans. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from The Journal: http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/7189-islamic-studentschallenge-student-loan-plans Altbach, P. G. (1987). The knowledge context: Comparative perspectives on the distribution of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press. Aston, L. (2010). Proposal for a Graduate Contribution Scheme in England: A report by University Alliance. London: University Alliance. Baker, S. (2011, March 24). Let's not do this again in a year or two, Browne says. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415588 Barnett, R. (2011). The marketised university: defending the indefensible. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon, The Marketisation os Higher Education and the Student as Consumer (pp. 39-51). Abingdon: Routledge. BBC. (2010, July 15). Graduate tax: Who stands where? Retrieved April 30, 2011, from BBC.co.uk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10648900 BBC. (2011, April 27). Maximum fees 'would have put students off', says survey. . Retrieved April 30, 2011, from BBC.co.uk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13193652 Bejar, D. (2011). The Visual Topography of a Generation Gap (#2, Brooklyn, NY). Retrieved May 07, 2011, from Daniel Bejar: http://www.danielbejar.com/Visual_Topography_of_a_Generation_Gap.html Blind, K. (2006). The Impact of ICT Standards. In I. E. (IEC), International Standardization as a Strategic Tool (pp. 155-166). Geneva: IEC. Blind, K., & Gauch, G. (2007). Standardization benefits researchers. Wissenschaftsmanagement, pp. 16-17. Boffey, D. (2011, April 23). Tuition fees will deter state school students, admits Cambridge. Retrieved April 2011, 30, from Guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/23/tuition-fees-state-school-cambridge Border, K., & Danvers, M. (2010). BSI Operations induction course. BSI, unpublished. British Library . (2011). Magna Carta. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from British Library Treasures in Full: http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation/mc_trans.html British Standards Institution (BSI). (2005a). BS 0: 2005 A standard for standards Part 1: Development of standards Specification. Chiswick: BSI. British Standards Institution (BSI). (2005b). BS 0: 2005 A standard for standardsPart 2: Structure and drafting Requirements and guidance. Chiswick: BSI.
62
British Standards Institution (BSI). (2009). Kitemark - delivering quality, reassurance, trust. Hemel Hempstead: BSI. British Standards Institution (BSI). (2009, March). Part 5. What are the different types of standard? Retrieved May 14, 2011, from The BSI Guide to Standardization - Section 1: Working with British Standards: http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/NSB/WorkingwithBS5.p df British Standards Institution (BSI). (2011). The British Standards Institution Annual Report and Financial Statements 2010. Chiswick: BSI. British Standards Institution (BSI). (2011a). BS 11000. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from BSI Group: http://www.bsigroup.co.uk/en/Assessment-and-Certification-services/Managementsystems/Standards-and-Schemes/PAS-11000/ British Standards Institution (BSI). (2011b). BSI BS 25999-2 Business Continuity Self-assessment Online: BCM. Retrieved April 27, 2011, from BSI Global: http://shop.bsigroup.com/Navigateby/Assessment-Tools/Self-assessment-tools/BCM2/BS25999-2-/ British Standards Institution (BSI). (2011c). BSI British Standards' role as the UK's National Standards Body. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from BSI Group: http://www.bsigroup.com/en/Standardsand-Publications/About-BSI-British-Standards/Our-role-as-an-NSB/ Brown, R. (2010). The Current Brouhaha about Standards in England. Quality in Higher Education, 129 137. Buchbinder, H. (1993). The Market Oriented University and the Changing Role of Knowledge. Higher Education, 331-347. Buchbinder, H., & Newson, J. (1991). From social knowledge to market knowledge: Higher education in the information age. The Gannet Centre Journal, 17-30. Burkinshaw, J., & Pass, S. (2008). Innovation in the Workplace: How are organisations responding to Generation Y employees and Web 2.0. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Cullerne-Brown, W. (2011, March 15). Hot seats dont come any hotter than the perch of OFFA director Martin Harris. In an interview, he refutes suggestions that the government has pushed OFFA beyond the legal pale, then reveals a more astonishing problem. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from Research Fortnight: http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=arti cle&articleId=1041998 Cullerne-Brown, W. (2011a, January 20). How to read HEFCE's funding letter from BIS. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from Research Blogs: http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/exquisite_life/2011/01/how-to-read-hefcesfunding-letter-from-bis.html Curtis, P. (2009, September 29). Will the new head of the HE watchdog take on universities? Retrieved April 30, 2011, from Guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/29/anthony-mcclaran-head-universitywatchdog Newell Hampson-Jones
63
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. . Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Davidson, C. N. (2011, April 28). So Last Century. Times Higher Education , pp. 32-36. de Vries, H. (2006). Standards for Business - How companies benefit from participation in international standards setting. In I. E. (IEC), International Standardization as a Strategic Tool (pp. 131-142). Geneva: IEC. de Vries, H. J. (2002). Standardisation Education. Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of Management. de Vries, H. J., & van Delden, M. (2006, March). How to integrate standardization in knowledge management. ISO Focus, pp. 37-38. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) . (2010, 11 03). Progressive plans for higher education. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from News Distribution Service for Government and the Public Sector: http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=416343&SubjectId=2 Department of Trade and Industry. (2002). Memorandum of Understanding between the United Kingdom Government and the British Standards Institution in Respect of its Activities as the United Kingdom's National Standards Body. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Dewey, J. (2007). Democracy and Education. Teddington: Echo Library. Drewery, K., Riley, A., Staff, H., Worman, D., & Line, F. (2008). Gen Up: How the Four Generations Work. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Drucker, P. F. (1988). The Coming of the New Organisation. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Drucker, P. F. (1993). The Post-Capitalist Society. New York: HarperCollins. Drucker, P. F. (2007). The Essential Drucker. Oxford: Elsevier. Erickson, T. (2009). Gen Y in the Workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. European Committee for Standardization (CEN) . (2009). Internal Regulations Part 3: Rules for the structure and drafting of CEN/CENELEC Publications (ISO/IEC Directives Part 2, modified) 2009-08 corrected version. Brussels: CEN. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2010). Change: 2009 Annual Report. Brussels: CEN. European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2010). Internal Regulations Part 2: Common Rules for Standardization Work. Brussels: CEN. Fomin, V. V., Pedersen, M. K., & de Vries, H. J. (2008). Open Standards and Government Policy: Results of a Delphi Survey. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a Learning Organisation. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Gill, J. (2009, November 9). Lord Browne to lead fees review. Retrieved April 2011, 30, from Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409011 Hampson-Jones, N. (2009). The Impact of Generation Y on Knowledge Management. Grenoble: Grenoble Graduate School of Business. Newell Hampson-Jones
64
Hampson-Jones, N. (2011). Standards and Standardization. Chiswick: BSI. Hansard. (2010, December 09). House of Commons Hansard Debates for 09 Dec 2010 (pt0003). Retrieved May 1, 2011, from www.paliament.uk: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101209/debtext/10120 9-0003.htm Hansen, M., Norhira, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). Whats Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge? Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Henry, J. (2010). Economic Impacts Micro Perspective. In D.-G. Choi, Standardization: Fundamentals, Impact and Business Strategy (pp. 115-134). Seoul: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). (2010). Guide to Funding How HEFCE allocates its funds. Bristol: HEFCE. Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance. (2010). Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee. (2009). Students and Universities Eleventh Report of Session 200809. (HC 170-I). London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2007). ISO/IEC Directives Supplement Procedures specific to ISO. Geneva: ISO. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2010). Measuring and Reducing the Standards Gap. Geneva: ITU. Kelly, U., McLellan, D., & McNicoll, I. (2009). The Impact of Universities on the UK Economy, Fourth Report. London: Universities UK. Kleiner, A., & Roth, G. (1997). How to make experience your company's best teacher. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Krechmer, K. B. (2006). The entrepreneur and standards. In I. E. (IEC), International Standardization as a Strategic Tool (pp. 143-154). Geneva: IEC. Lindsey, E. (2011, February 23). Elizabeth Lindsey: Curating humanity's heritage. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_lindsey_curating_humanity_s_heritage.html London Economics . (2011). The Future of Higher Education: Written submission from London Economics. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. London Economics. (2010). Fair funding for All: An analysis of the relationship between student support, graduate contribution and the funding of universities in England: scenarios for the future. London: million+. Mellors-Bourne, R., Connor, H., & Jackson, C. (2011). STEM graduates in non-STEM jobs Executive Summary. London: BIS. Morgan, J. (2011a, 01 06). Now that's research impact: 'paradigm-shifting' Browne drew on a single opinion survey. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=414764 Newell Hampson-Jones
65
Morgan, J. (2011b, March 03). 6K must be ceiling, survey told Browne. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=415358 Mulheirn, I., & Shorthouse, R. (2010). Funding Undergraduates: Designing a fair market in Higher Education. London: Social Market Foundation. National Union of Students. (2010, 10 18). Government must 'rethink' Browne review as poll shows opposition to tuition fee hike. Retrieved April 2011, 30, from http://www.nus.org.uk/en/News/News/Government-must-rethink-Browne-review-as-pollshows-opposition-to-tuition-fee-hike/ Newman, M. (2009, November 19). Do you want to be in my gang? Retrieved May 14, 2011, from Times Higher Education: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=409118 Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Nordensvrd, J. (2011). The Consumer Metaphor versus the citizen metaphor: different sets of roles for students. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon, The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer (pp. 157-169). Abingdon: Routledge. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1999). Higher Education to 2030 Volume 2 Globalisation. Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD. Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2004). Quality assurance in UK higher education: A guide for international readers. Retrieved April 29, 2011, from QAA: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/international/studentGuide/English_readers.asp#item3 Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). (2010). Who we are and what we do. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from QAA: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/WhatWeDo.asp Rich, J. (2010, November 16). Fairer Funding: An alternative plan for funding students and HEIs. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from http://www.johnnyrich.com/Fairer_Funding.html Russell Group of Universities. (2010). Funding Higher Education in England: What are the Options? London: Russell Group of Universities. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Busienss Students; Fifth Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education. Scullion, R., Molesworth, M., & Nixon, E. (2011). Arguments, responsibility and what is to be done about marketisation. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon, The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer (pp. 227-236). Abingdon: Routledge. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. Shepherd, J. (2011, April 20). Tuition fees 2012: all universities to charge undergraduates at least 6,000. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from Guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/apr/20/tuition-fee-charges-universities-2012 Snook, S. (2008). Love and Fear and the Modern Boss. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing. Newell Hampson-Jones
66
Swann, G. M. (2007). Standards are central to wealth creation. Wissenschaftsmanagement, pp. 26-27. Swann, G. M. (2010). The Economics of Standardization: an update. London: Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Swann, G. M., Temple, P., & Shurmer, M. (1996, September). Standards and Trade Performance: The UK Experience. The Economic Journal, pp. 1297-1313. The New World Encyclopaedia. (2009). Indus Valley Civilisation. Retrieved April 2011, 26, from The New World Encyclopaedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Indus_Valley_Civilization Trades Union Congress. (2011, April 12). Using RPI to set student loans will cost graduates up to 5,000 more, says TUC. Retrieved May 1, 2011, from Trades Union Congress: http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-19467-f0.cfm Universities UK. (2010). Higher Education in Facts and Figures. London: Universities UK. Williams, G. (2010). Standards for Statistical Methods, Tools and Techniques. Teddington: National Physics Laboratory. Woodward, C. D. (1972). The Story of Standards. London: BSI. Yajizi, M. (2006). Actively building global standards. In I. E. (IEC), International Standardization as a Strategic Tool (pp. 13-18). Geneva: IEC.

Y Curious - Knowledge Management Between The Generations

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Y Curious - Knowledge Management Between The Generations

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

[Year]

Knowledge Management between the Generations

Y Curious: Knowledge Management between the Generations Table of Contents

Front cover image: (Bejar, 2011)

2.0 Literature Review

3.0 Research Methodology

Figure 1 - The research 'onion' (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009)

4.0 Knowledge Management and the Generations Defined

4.1 Knowledge Management

Figure 2 - Nonaka's model of knowledge transfer (Adapted from Nonaka 1991)

4.2 Defining the Generations

5.0 Higher Education

5.1 The Benefits of Higher Education

5.2 Proposed changes to the Higher Education sector

6.1 How Standards are defined

Figure 6 - The 6 Levels of Standardisation (Hampson-Jones, 2011)

The categories of British Standards can be found detailed in Appendix C.

6.2 Compliance with standards

6.3 The Benefits of Standardisation and Compliance

Further information regarding the history of standardisation can be found in Appendix C

7.0 Recommendations for Knowledge Management between Generations

Figure 8 - The responsibilities of the generations within these proposals

7.1 Generational Knowledge Framework

Explicit Knowledge Absorption

Tacit Knowledge Creation Knowledge Redistribution Time (Years of experience)

7.2 Organisational Knowledge Committees

Organisational Knowledge Committee

Figure 10 - Organisational Knowledge Committee model

Appendix A The Higher Education Structure in England

Figure 11 - Funding in UK Higher Education (Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), 2004)

Appendix B The role of mission groups in higher education

Do you want to be in my gang?

Appendix C Standardisation in Historical Context

Appendix D Categories of British, European and International Standards

(British Standards Institution (BSI), 2009)

S-ar putea să vă placă și