【正文】 tre. ? ?knowwhat? and ?knowhow?. ? ?knowing about something? and ?knowing through direct experience? (King, 1964) or ?knowledge about? and ?knowledge of acquaintance? (James, 1950). ? While experience is directly related to ?knowhow?, ?knowwhat? is the result of “systematic thought that eliminates the subjective and contextual contingencies of experience” (Spender, 1996: 49). ? Blackler (1995): embrained, embodied, encultured, embedded and encoded. ? Spender (1996): conscious (explicit individual knowledge), objectified (explicit anisational knowledge), automatic (preconscious individual knowledge) and collective (practical, contextdependent anisational knowledge). ? “[T]he quintessential knowledgecreation process takes place when tacit knowledge is converted into explicit knowledge. In other words, our hunches, perceptions, mental models, beliefs, and experiences are converted to something that can be municated and transmitted in formal and systematic language.” (Nonaka and Takeuchi: 1995: 230231, italics added) The Knowledge Commodity ? “The modity reflects the social characteristics of men?s own labour as objective characteristics of the products of labour themselves…It is nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things.” (Marx, 1976: 164165) Commodity Fetishism “The mysterious character of the modityform consists therefore simply in the fact that the modity reflects the social characteristics of men?s own labour as objective characteristics of the products of labour themselves, as the socionatural properties of these things. Hence it also reflects the social relation of the producers to the sum total of labour as a social relation between objects, a relation which exists apart from and outside the producers. Through this substitution, the products of labour bee modities, sensuous things which are at the same time suprasensible or social. In the same way, the impression made by a thing on the optic nerve is perceived not as a subjective excitation of that nerve but as the objective form of a thing outside the eye. In the act of seeing, of course, light is really transmitted from one thing, the external object, to another thing, the eye. It is a physical relation between physical things. As against this, the modityform, and the valuerelation of the products of labour within which it appears, have absolutely no connection with the physical nature of the modity and the material [dinglich] relations arising out of this. It is nothing but the definite social relation between men themselves which assumes here, for them, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy we must take flight into the misty realm of religion. There the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with a life of their own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the human race. So it is in the world of modities with the products of men?s hands. I call this the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as modities, and is therefore inseparable from the production of modities.” (Marx, 1976: 165) Knowledge Management and Management Knowledge ? Jackson and Carter write: “Management knowledge…constitutes a relatively homogeneous canon that claims to be able to improve anizational efficiency (and, thereby, profit, though the link is rarely demonstrable), in particular through the adoption of specific techniques for the use of labour. The general objective of these techniques is to enable units of labour to be more productive – that is, to work harder” (1998: 151) ? For Jackson and Carter, management knowledge is thus “an ideologically based canon, biased in favour of an essentially capitalist interest. It functions as part of the technomediatic hegemony that sustains this dominant discourse” (1998: 152). References ? Swan et al. (1999) ?Knowledge management and innovation: works and working?, Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4): 262275. ? Davenport, Thomas H. and Laurence Prusak (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. ? Yakhlef, Ali and Miriam SalzerMorling (2023) ?Intellectual Capital: Managing by Numbers?, in Craig Prichard, Richard Hull, Mike Chumer and Hugh Willmott (eds.) Managing Knowledge: Critical Investigations of Work and Learning. London: Macmillan, 2036. ? Edvinsson, Leif and Michael S. Malone (1998) Intellectual Capital. London: Piat。 Stewart, 1998。 Nahaphiet and Ghoshal, 1998。 Edvinsson and Malone, 1998。 it bees a valuable corporate asset only if it is accessible, and its value increases with the level of accessibility” (ibid.: 18) ? Expert systems, artificial intelligence, desktop videoconferencing, hypertext systems such as intras and knowledge maps. ? The purpose of harnessing knowledge is, of course, clear: to turn knowledge into a valuable corporate asset, which will help to increase the petitive advantage of panies. Knowledge and Intellectual Capital ? “The formation of the discourse on intellectual capital is predicated upon the assumption that the traditional doubleentry bookkeeping system is not able to reflect emerging realities. It is an inadequate tool for measuring the value of corporations whose value, it is claimed, lies mainly in their intangible ponents.” (Yakhlef and SalzerM246。 details implementation steps ? Critical success factors ? Issues/challenges, lessons learned ? Tools/diagnostics required 05 Key Tools Diagnostics (Industry specific): ? For each diagnostic/tool relevant to methodology ? How to apply/use tool, expected results, detailed steps ? Sample panel set for presenting to client/steering m