《基于團隊建設的企業(yè)知識型員工開發(fā)研究 工商管理 論文 英文翻譯》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《基于團隊建設的企業(yè)知識型員工開發(fā)研究 工商管理 論文 英文翻譯（10頁珍藏版）》請在裝配圖網(wǎng)上搜索。

1、 畢業(yè)設計（論文） 外文翻譯資料 系 部： 經(jīng)濟與工商管理系 專 業(yè)： 工商管理 學生姓名： 張 尚 班級學號： 33 指導教師姓名： 指導教師職稱： 副教授 Knowledge Workers Need Better Management Knowledge worker

2、s could perform much better if we only knew how to manage them, says Thomas Davenport. His suggestion: Dont treat them the all same, and measure them tactfully. They dont like to be told what to do. They enjoy more autonomy than other workers. Much of their work is invisible and hard to measure, be

3、cause it goes on inside their heads or outside the office. They are a growing part of the U.S. workforce, and their skills are hard to replace. Theyre knowledge workers, and they are performing well below their potential because companies still dont know how to manage them, says Thomas Davenport,

4、professor of information technology and management at Babson College, in Wellesley, Mass., and director of research for Babsons executive education program. "Knowledge workers are going to be the primary force determining which economies are successful and which arent," he says. "They are the key

5、source of growth in most organizations. New products and services, new approaches to marketing, new business models—all these come from knowledge workers. So if you want your economy to grow, your knowledge workers had better be doing a good job." Yet after studying more than 100 companies and 600

6、individual knowledge workers, Davenport has come to the conclusion that the old dictum of hiring smart people and leaving them alone isnt the best way to get the most out of knowledge workers. As he writes in his latest book, "Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performance and Results from Kno

7、wledge Workers" (Harvard Business School Press, July 2005), although knowledge workers "cant be managed in the traditional sense of the word, you can intervene, but you cant do it in a heavy-handed, hierarchical way." Executive Editor Allan Alter has followed Davenports career from his days as a p

8、ioneering thinker on business process reengineering and knowledge management. He met with Davenport in his office at Babson Colleges School of Executive Education in order to learn how managers, and CIOs in particular, can improve the performance of this critical segment of the workforce. An edited

9、version of their discussion follows. CIO Insight: How do you define knowledge workers? DAVENPORT: People whose primary job is to do something with knowledge: to create it, distribute it, apply it. Most of the time they also have a high degree of education or expertise. They include anywhere from

10、 a quarter to a third of the workforce, but not everyone who uses knowledge. If you are digging ditches, you may have some knowledge on the job, but its not the primary purpose of what you do. Are companies doing a good job of managing and improving the performance of knowledge workers? Theyre no

11、t. What most organizations do is HSPALTA: Hire smart people and leave them alone. Weve spent a lot of effort recruiting knowledge workers and assessing how capable they might be before we hire them. But once theyre hired we dont do a lot to improve their performance. Process improvement has mostly b

12、een for other workers: transactional workers, manufacturing workers, people in call centers. All the serious approaches to improving work have largely escaped knowledge work. We let knowledge workers get away with saying theres no process to their work, that every day is different. We dont measure

13、 much of anything about knowledge work. If we dont measure knowledge work, why do you think theres room to improve knowledge worker productivity and performance? Its a pretty well-informed hunch. People improve processes all the time; they just havent done it with knowledge-work processes as much

14、. Its an extrapolation of the same logic in other work, that processes can be improved. Here is one number that indicates performance and productivity can be improved: IDC found that 1,000 knowledge workers can lose as much as $6 million a year just searching for nonexistent data, or repeating wor

15、k that has already been done. Is it possible every knowledge worker is working to his or her potential? Its possible, but unlikely. We can get a lot better at improving their performance. Why hasnt knowledge management helped more in the effort to improve knowledge-worker performance and productiv

16、ity? Knowledge management was an early attempt to intervene in knowledge work. For the most part, it wasnt particularly successful, because we didnt look closely at how knowledge workers did their work. We tried to be too broad in our focus. Most organizations simply created one big repository f

17、or all knowledge and all workers. The only way we can get people to use knowledge on the job is to understand how they do their jobs, and then figure out some way to inject knowledge into the course of their day-to-day work, not make it a separate thing you have to consult when you need knowledge.

18、 We have to be much more targeted in approaching knowledge management. We have to target a specific job. And the best way is to use technology to bake the knowledge into the job. How do we improve knowledge worker performance? There ought to be a lot more experiments. We have experiments now,

19、but we dont measure anything, so we dont learn anything. If we say were going to put people in cubicles to improve communication, then we ought to at least measure some subjective aspects of communication before and after. We ought to see if cubicles work well with a small group before we put a wh

20、ole company into them. What is the most radical change thats needed in the management of knowledge workers? We need to start focusing much more on job-specific knowledge and information environments, at least from an IT perspective. Capital One applies some of the same experimental approaches

21、to technology. Do their knowledge systems really work? Does it improve productivity? Does it improve communication? All the things that people talk about but never really measure. Designing these knowledge environments for knowledge workers is expensive and hard to do. But if were serious about ma

22、king knowledge workers more productive, were going to have to focus on particular jobs and sometimes even particular individuals. There are a whole range of possibilities for differentiating knowledge workers so that we dont treat them all the same. I dont think you should use any one segmentation

23、 approach, but the one I like best is a 2-by-2 matrix thats based on how much collaboration is involved in the job, and how much expertise is involved in the job. Intel has five or six categories that differentiate knowledge workers on the basis of mobility and how aggressively they adopt technolo

24、gy. There are "cube captains" who dont move around much, and "nomads" who move around a lot and need portable technology. Some involve factory workers and others who dont have a lot of personal technology available. This sounds as if its the companys job to tell knowledge workers what works. Dont k

25、nowledge workers prefer to learn from one another? Maybe. I think a good learning program for knowledge workers would combine classroom learning and learning at their workstations. What we all want is just-in-time learning, where when we have a problem well click on a learning program and itll tell

26、 us how to address that problem. But its hard to do and were a long way from it. Knowledge workers have a lot of power, and you dont want to impose things on them they dont want to do, because they dont like to be told what to do. They may put up with it for a while, but eventually theyll look for

27、 a job that gives them the autonomy they think they deserve. Besides, managers cant easily enforce an order when work takes place in peoples heads. You have to make it easy for knowledge workers to do what you want them to do. But some organizations are starting to mandate the use of productivit

28、y tools. Historically, pharmaceutical companies have asked scientists to use electronic lab notebooks, but never made it a requirement. Hence, they had no way to ensure that lab results were collected in a similar way across the organization. Infinity Pharmaceuticals, a company in Cambridge, Mass.,

29、has made using an electronic lab notebook a condition of employment. Youd stand out if you didnt answer your electronic mail or voice mail messages today—its semi-mandatory. We might as well make it a little more mandatory and help people use the stuff more effectively. Knowledge workers take pri

30、de in what they do, and they want to be productive. And no one likes drudgery. Most of the interventions involve getting rid of work no one likes to do anyway. Ask people, "What do you think can be done to the job?" When you redesign knowledge work processes, its got to be much more participative

31、than it was in these top-down reengineering efforts. People have to see what the benefit is to them. 更好地管理知識型員工 “假如我們只知道如何管理他們，知識工作者可以發(fā)揮得更好?！?托馬斯達文波特說。他的建議：不要用相同的方法對待他們，要有巧妙的措施。 他們不喜歡被告知該怎么做。他們喜歡比其他工人享有更多的自主權。他們的大部分工作是無形和難以衡量的，因為它也許在他們的頭腦內(nèi)部或辦公室以外的地方進行。他們

32、所占美國勞動人口的比重在不斷上升而且他們的技能是難以替代的。 “他們是知識型工人，他們的表現(xiàn)遠遠低于他們的潛力，因為公司仍然不知道如何管理他們?！毙畔⒓夹g教授兼芭布斯學院的管理者，在韋爾斯利，馬薩諸塞州作為巴布森的行政教育課程研究部主管的托馬斯達文波特說。 “知識工人將成為決定哪些經(jīng)濟體制成功與否的主要力量?！彼f， “他們的主要增長源在大多數(shù)組織。新的產(chǎn)品和服務，市場營銷的新辦法，新的商業(yè)模式，所有這些來自于知識型工人。所以，如果你想你的經(jīng)濟有所增長，您的知識工作者最好還是在好好干事。” 然而，在研究100多個公司和600名個人的知識型工人之后，達文波特已經(jīng)得出的結(jié)論是，舊的格

33、言雇用聰明的人，其本身并不是發(fā)揮知識型工人功效的的最佳途徑。正如他寫在他的最新著作“思考的生活：如何從知識工人那里獲取更好的性能” （哈佛商學院出版社， 2005年7月） ，但知識型工人不能被“傳統(tǒng)”意義上的管理所指使。 總之，你可以進行干預，但是你不能用強制手段，分層的方式。 執(zhí)行編輯阿蘭在達文波特的研究之后改變了職業(yè)生涯，因為一項開創(chuàng)性的思想家的業(yè)務流程重組和知識管理。在巴布森學院的學校執(zhí)行教育辦公室他會見了達文波特，以了解如何管理人員，尤其是信息主管們，可以提高部分勞動力關鍵性能。經(jīng)過編輯的討論如下。 CIO的洞察：你如何定義知識型員工？ 達文波特：人，其主要工作是用知識做一些事

34、情：創(chuàng)建，傳播，應用它。 大多數(shù)時候，他們也有高學歷和高度的專業(yè)知識技能。它們包括從地方四分之一到三分之一的勞動力，但不是使用知識的每個人。如果您是挖溝渠，你可能有一些工作的知識，但不是你要做什么的主要目的。 企業(yè)是否有很好地管理和改善知識工作者的性能？ 他們沒有。大多數(shù)組織做的是分離的：租用聰明的人并讓他們獨立。我們已經(jīng)花了很多努力招募知識型工人和評估在我們聘請他們之前可能具備多少能力。但是，一旦他們被雇用我們不會做許多事情來提高它們的性能。工藝改進主要是對其他工人：交易工人，生產(chǎn)工人，人民的呼叫中心。所有這些非同小可的辦法，改進工作基本上逃脫知識工作。 我們讓知識工作者逃脫，

35、說他們的工作沒有進程，每天是不同的。我們沒有衡量的事情很多是知識的工作。 如果我們不這樣做衡量知識的工作，你為什么認為有改善知識工作者的生產(chǎn)力和業(yè)績的空間？ 這是非常明智的預感。人民改善流程的時候，他們只是還沒有做到與知識的工作流程一樣多。這是一個在其他的工作中相同的邏輯推斷，這過程可以得到改善。 這是有一個數(shù)字顯示業(yè)績和生產(chǎn)力是可以提高的： IDC公司發(fā)現(xiàn)， 1000個知識工作者一年會失去多達600萬美元用于尋找不存在的數(shù)據(jù)，或重復已經(jīng)做了的大量工作。是否有可能每一個知識工作者正在努力用他或她的潛力工作？這是有可能的，但可能性不大。在改善他們的業(yè)績方面，我們能夠做得更好。 為什么

36、知識管理沒有在改善知識工作者的性能和生產(chǎn)力方面帶來更多的效果？ 知識管理是早期一個干預知識工作的企圖。在大多數(shù)情況下，它不是特別成功，因為我們并不能近距離仔細觀察知識型工人如何做的工作。我們設法重點過于寬泛。 大多數(shù)組織僅僅創(chuàng)建一個所有知識和所有工人的大倉庫。 只有這樣，我們可以讓人們利用知識去工作是了解他們?nèi)绾巫鏊麄兊墓ぷ?，然后找出某種方式把知識注入到他們的日常工作的過程中，而不是使它成為一個當你需要的時候不得不單獨磋商的知識。 我們在處理知識管理的時候必須更加有針對性。我們需要瞄準具體的目標。而最好的辦法是使用技術來烘烤知識，使之融入工作。 我們?nèi)绾翁岣咧R工作者的效能

37、？ 人們應該更多地實驗。我們現(xiàn)在做的實驗，不衡量什么，所以我們就沒有學到任何東西。 如果我們說我們要讓人進入臥室以改善交流，那么，我們應該至少測量一些主觀方面在溝通之前和之后。我們應該看到，是否一個小群體在一個房間工作比我們把整個公司納入其中之前要好。 我們需要開始關注更多的特定的職業(yè)知識和信息的環(huán)境，至少從IT的觀點。 資本一個適用于一些相同的實驗方法的技術。做自己的知識體系真正的工作？它是否提高生產(chǎn)力？它是否改善溝通？所有人們談論的東西，從來沒有真正的措施。 為知識型工人設計這些知識環(huán)境是非常昂貴的，而且很難做到。但是，如果我們很認真地對待知識工作者使之變得更有效率，我們將不

38、得不把重點放在特定的工作，有時甚至是特定的個人上。 有一整套鑒別知識型工人可能性的方法，致使我們不能把他們同等對待。我不認為你應該使用任何一個分割的辦法，但我最喜歡的是一個建立在工作協(xié)作參與程度和技術含量程度基礎上的2 2矩陣。 英特爾根據(jù)員工所采納技術的積極性和活躍性，把不同的知識型工人分成5-6類。有“立方體隊長”誰不走動，和“游牧民族”誰移動了很多并且需要攜帶技術。有些涉及到工廠工人和其他沒有大量的個人技術的員工。 這聽起來仿佛是該公司的工作向知識型工人在起作用。難道知識工作者不希望彼此學習嗎？ 或許，我認為，對于知識工作者，一個良好的學習計劃，將結(jié)合課堂學習和工作站

39、操作的學習。我們大家都希望僅僅是及時學習，在那里當我們有一個問題我們會按下一個學習計劃，它會告訴我們?nèi)绾谓鉀Q這一問題。但它很難做到，我們很長的路要走。 知識工人有很多的權力，他們不想做，你不要想強加東西給他們，因為他們不喜歡被告知該怎么做。他們可以忍受它一段時間，但最終他們會找讓他們覺得滿足他們應該得到的自主性的工作。 此外，員工在腦力工作時，管理人員不能輕易讓他們執(zhí)行命令。你必須以簡便的方法讓知識工作者知道你想要他們做什么。 但是，一些組織已經(jīng)開始授權使用生產(chǎn)力工具。從歷史上看，制藥公司已要求科學家使用電子實驗室筆記本，但不是必要的要求。因此，他們沒有辦法，以確保實驗室結(jié)果在整個組織以同樣的方式收集。在美國馬薩諸塞州劍橋的無限制藥公司，已經(jīng)有了用電子實驗室筆記本聘用的條件。 如果您沒有回答你的電子郵件或語音郵件今天，您想要脫穎而出——它的半強制性的。我們也可能使它成為一個多一點強制性，并幫助人們更有效地使用東西。 知識工人以他們所做的事情為驕傲，他們想成為有效的生產(chǎn)力。 沒有人喜歡苦工。反正不管怎么說大多數(shù)的干預措施涉及擺脫工作的，沒有人喜歡做。詢問人們， “你覺得可以對工作做什么呢？ ”當你重新設計知識工作流程時的，這是必須要參與的，比這些自上而下的業(yè)務流程重組更有效。人們看到是能夠給他們的好處。