Your questions

Question by OAED, Greece

Our Organization has made some steps towards privatization of some training activities, by creating S.A companies. How could knowledge sharing work in such a case?

Question by IEFP, Portugal

This assett of apparently never ending resources, these practices that have been described to us, this network that is now being presented shows us a huge field of opportunities, namely for the formal and informal apprenticeships. Which contribution can we still also expect for the social recognition of these knowledges in order that people can have an effective feedback of their professional and social investments?

Questions by LERNIA, Sweden

1. How does one create these basic requirements if there aren´t any from the start?
   
   
2. Who are the key persons in a company that can carry out KM?
   
   
3. How would you place the following factors to carry out KM in order of importance: coaching, job rotation, education, project, rewards, managers' good examples, a good intranet, time?
   
   
4. Which are the most common mistakes that a company makes when starting KM?
   
   
5. If one thinks that one has gone a long way in working in the KM spirit but has not used the concept in the organisation, is it just to continue with the good work or does it still demand a new strategy when regarding KM? Is there something in KM which is really new?
   
   
6. Which are the customers' and consultants' roles in a successful KM?
   
   
7. How does one measure the progress in KM and how do we know that this progress actually derives from KM?
   
   
8. Isn't there a built-in contradiction in the concept of KM? From which level will the process be carried out to make it successful?
   
   
9. How should one encourage knowledge-sharing and at the same time make the individual realise that there is a loss without this sharing. Should rewards be individual or collective?
   
   
10. Is it important that a knowledge-based company should have a good command of the basic vocabulary of KM? How many words does the vocabulary of KM consist of?
    
    
11. Who owns the process of KM in a company? How does the development of focus look like when regarding who owns the process?
    
12. How important is the computer maturity for a knowledge-based company to succeed in KM?

Question by FAS, Ireland

How can KM be used within an organisation to retain the expertise / knowledge in an organisation with an older age profile, so that it's not lost when they retire?

Questions by COLO, The Netherlands

1. Knowledge on the individual level is often seen as very personal. What we try to do with KM and virtual tools is to get a hold on all the personal individual knowledge, skills, experiences that are gathered in our organisations. We then see often that Information Technology and virtual tools are used. But: IT solutions are not the only solutions. We also need urgently the personal factor, drive and motivation, because Knowledge of Value should be evaluated on the criterium of the contribution it makes to the personal and organisational skills In many organisations we therefore need a cultural change.
   
   
2. In Exemplo we have just started t try and build a (grand) database in which all EVTA-members and related organisations can insert their good/best practices in their fields of knowledge and interests of vocational training and the labour market. We already have now about one thousand participants ( logged in individuals) that can put their knowledge or information in their expert fields on the extranet or make a search in this database. In our opinion it is not only important to reach as many as possible participants, because these participants can differ a great deal in their organisational and cultural working areas ( from governmental policymaking or -executing organisations to private providers in vocational training in the labour market). These different (cultural and organisational) participants can insert their good/best practices in a huge and maybe too grand database. We therefore like to make a plea for organising more virtual communities of practice and communities of cultural backgrounds, where the participants not only can search for "knowledge or information" but also can search and meet for their soulmates and meet colleagues in their own fields of interests and expertise ( Like the discussion Fora as 'cutting the diamond' now) We therefore need not only a database of good practices but we also need (urgently) a better description of the different member organisations and their working cultures. Besides that we also need a well defined and equipped and classified definition or database on the actual participants in Exemplo. In the Who is Who tab we now find to little information on the persons and their backgrounds. We also like to search and find related souls in common working fields. What can Brugge state to that plea?

Questions by HRDA, Cyprus

1. How is the concept of KM related to other concepts or philosophies on optimizing the performance of business operations such as total quality management or quality function deployment ? How different is the concept from KM from what we used to call, and , of course some of us still do, the management training system, MIS and to what extent does this concept depend on the level of computerization the various organizations may have ?
   
   
2. How can the concept of KM be applied without losing the confidentiality principle and does one measure the success of this since knowledge is something intangible ?

Questions by MENFPS, Luxembourg

1. Comment peut-on évaluer un système de Knowledge Management, et comment établir des indicateurs de mesure (notion de transférabilité, d'échange et son transfert de l'individuel au collectif)? Est-ce qu'il y a déjà eu une 1ière évaluation et quelles sont les résultats/conclusions pour les projets "Training Village", "Learning Valley" et Exemplo?
   
   
2. Quelle est aujourd'hui la valeur du stock des savoirs dans notre société pour laquelle la seule constante est le changement, et est-ce que ces stocks ne sont pas contre-productifs dans la mesure où on devra trouver de nouvelles issues/solutions, sans se référer aux savoirs existants?

Questions by FOREM, Belgium

1. Le partage des savoirs sur l'ensemble du personnel ne remet-il pas en cause les relations sociales au sein de l'organisme, notamment via une remise en cause des échelles de qualification ?
   
   
2. Dans le contexte de la gestion des connaissances, n'est-il pas indispensable de modifier la gestion des ressources humaines d'un organisme ? Si oui, quelles sont les étapes essentielles ?
   
   
3. Voyez-vous des limites techniques au partage du savoir ?
   
   
4. Y a-t-il une vérification de la pertinence des informations? Si oui, comment cela se passe-t-il?
   
   
5. Comment Exemplo intègre-t-il cette dimension de rencontres en face-à-face?

Question by AIKE, Finland

For Mr Tony Mobbs : We find the input on chaos promoting creativity very inspiring. As educational organisations we have a lot of responsibilities to take into consideration, financial to name just one. Considering this, how can we allow ourselves to be in a state of chaos in order to create creativity? And how does this state of chaos correlate with the idea of creating a community, which promotes trust?

Questions by ENAIP, Italy

1. How are cultural, language and context related differences managed in a knowledge based community in an international context : are they an obstacle to the sharing of knowledge or can they enrich it.
   
   
2. What is the relation between Knowledge Sharing and common practices? Is Knowledge something to be shared or to be built, developed together?
   
   
3. What cultural and behavioral characteristics do managers need the best to use knowledge?

Questions by VDAB, Belgium

• For the panel:
1. Would it not be possible to unite or integrate all the existing learning platforms of valleys into one big global platform or valley accessible to all target groups (companies, training organisations, schools, and the individual learner in the LLL society)? This would have a great multiplicator effect for knowledge sharing.
   
   
2. In any organization, there are a number of people who are innovative, creative, and constantly looking for new tools, new methods, new materials, etc. These are what I would call the 'leading-edge' people. Now, typically, these people are already part of networks both national and international, through partnerships, international cooperation, European projects, etc. They have frequent contacts with colleagues in other organizations, make intensive use of the Internet as a resource, and already exchange materials, something that has been greatly facilitated by e-mail. On the other hand, there are, in any organization, a number of other people, who tend to thrive on routine procedures, and at best make use of new tools, new procedures, or new materials developed by the 'leading-edge' people. It seems to me that if a tool like Exemplo is to have a serious added value, it must be by appealing to and involving those who are not (or not yet) the leading-edge people. If you can only involve the leading-edge people, you are preaching to the converted. The question is: how do you go about involving the non-leading edge people? Offering the technology, the tool, is obviously not enough. What else is needed?
   
   
3. How can an organisation deal with a certain reluctance towards or lack of commitment for knowledge sharing in an internationally very different cultural environment? Are there no cultural differences to bear in mind (e.g. Flemish people tend to be very modest and do not always recognize the true (international) value of their work). This reluctance may be even higher in publicly financed organizations like VDAB. How do you cope with a lack of motivation or culturally induced inhibitions for knowledge sharing? Can personal coaching help here?


• For Ms Françoise Rossion:
1. We agree with "quantity is quality", yet one wants a quick, ready-to-use answer, and the time to browse through masses of information is often not available. How can procedures or technology help us or be installed to get the precise information one is looking for in a minimum of time wasted by searching?
   
   
2. How do you define "quality through quantity"? Won't we get lost in a seemingly amorphous quantity of good practices? And what if the information found is not immediately valuable for the finder (which will de-motivate further searches)? Is there no need to cluster, filter, translate, all the quantity into readily applicable quality for each member organization?
   
   
3. Communication from the bottom will have to be translated into English/French; How will this problem be dealt with?
   
   
4. "face to face communication - keep in touch" How can we/ who will evaluate whether Exemplo is a useful tool? In other words, the system's evolution depends on constant feed-back. Metaphore: should the house be adjusted and the room be restructured?


• For Mr Alain Buntinx:


1. KM and e-learning require investments (in terms of money, time, personnel, and material means) within a training organisation, for the benefit of the trainers. (Is a lack of financial resources an obstacle for the development of KM? Is the investment budget per trainer a criterion for the development of KM?) Is there no risk for the money invested in KM to be thrown away if the transfer of knowledge and the application of the acquired knowledge is not both checked and evaluated? How can you measure the added value of knowledge management within an organisation? On the other hand: How can we keep knowledge sharing within check, how can we monitor it? (Will they not start to lead a life of their own?) How does all this relate to the need for standardisation?
   
   
2. To what extent is knowledge sharing a critical success factor for a company? Siemens is an example of "inside-company" knowledge sharing. Is it realistic to believe in "external" knowledge sharing? Isn't knowledge or expertise a competitive product that needs to be turned into commercial value (money)? In other words: is the idea of sharing knowledge compatible with economic power in a competitive environment? Or is it in fact in contradiction with the idea of competition in a free market economy?
   
   
3. How does a company like Siemens deal with the time spent on knowledge sharing? How does your company create time for such activities on the work floor? What percentage of the Siemens workforce actually take part in the Siemens Learning Valley? Can you give a practical example of a community in the Valley?
   
   
4. Learning tension (motivation)is the keystone.
   How does Siemens stimulate/reward? (seeing/meeting each other is that enough?)


• For Mr Jean-Yves Prax:
1. E-learning is growing ever more important in teaching. Are we not forgetting that warm social contact (face-to-face) is of capital importance in learning and in knowledge sharing?
   
   
2. It seems to me that search robots (Altavista,Yahoo,)are a more convenient way to find training methods and/or information regarding course materials. Is the key not to be found on internet?
   
   
3. In your presentation you mentioned "les quatre mondes d'apprentissage". Where do you think that 'learning by doing' / 'trial and error' come in?
   
   
4. E-learning and self-training imply a growing autonomy of the trainee, yet at the same time imply a rather vague definition of the training efforts within the organization. Should the organization (through knowledge sharing) not develop evaluation and certification schemes in order to make self-training more 'real', less 'vague'?


• For Mr Tony Mobbs:
1. How can an organization change its personnel's 'beliefs' about learning?
   
   
2. How do you stimulate the individual's motivation to keep on accumulating knowledge? Does the capacity to learn not decrease from a physiological point of view as one grows older, hence increasing the rate of exclusion from the labour market?


• General questions:
1. Should an organisation like VDAB not start with its own internal knowledge sharing platform, before going on the European level?
   
   
2. How can we enhance all participants' commitment to contributing materials (e.g. courseware) to a platform like Exemplo?

Questions by IB, Germany

1. In the context of exchange of knowledge between EVTA organizations, we consider it a necessity to develop an interchange of inter-cultural skills. An inter-cultural dimension in vocational education would lead to enlargement of prospect, higher flexibility and to more mobility of the participating individuals and organizations as well. But in addition, there are difficulties like language barriers, a different sense to communicate and to act. How could this inter-cultural dimension be improved also by making use of the Exemplo tool to develop mutual understanding of communicating and acting ?
   
   
2. For IB in Germany the EVTA-Net and the Exemplo-tool could be very useful for managers and project-developers. Unfortunately most of our trainers are only able to speak al little English (or Russian).Our problem is how we can motivate our trainers to share knowledge in the Exemplo-net when the data-base is in English or French.. Is there any help through knowledge-management-processes other than translation or learning languages?
   
   
3. When and how will EVTA develop criteria to benchmark the different examples in the Exemplo data-base?