Knowledge in businesses. Reflexion on a flexible management method

WORKING PAPER SERIES PHILOSOPHY AND KNOWLEDGE: Reflexion on a flexible management method.

Purpose: Theoretical Discussion

ABSTRACT

In this discussion, we reflect on the value given to knowledge in a business context and deliberate a contrary philosophical perspective which does not conform to prevailing knowledge theory. We consider why, if knowledge is key for business success and competitive advantage, the transfer of knowledge within an organisation remains problematic. Whereby, if the creation of knowledge before transfer is recognised is a significant factor in determining a starting point for analogous scrutiny, then what makes this focal point so difficult to establish and measure?

We therefore consider parallelism between agents who believe propositions and the formal system that derives proposition. In doing so, we synthesise from current literature and research, the epistemic principal of ‘knowledge’, which underpins the understanding of the many congruent knowledge transfer theories, in a business context. To do this we reflect on Lindström and the epistemic states of Spohn, wherein, we can draw on descriptions of conditional doxastic maps, as a natural extension of contemporary Kripke models. We conclude the epistemic principle of ‘knowledge’, which underpins the plausibility of comparisons between epistemically distinguishable knowledge transfer, must include perspectives and doyennes from a recognisable, not implied, value standpoint.

Introduction

For this discussion, we adopt a Hintikka (1962; 1963; 1982) logical [modal] operator as a useful predicate at the onset. This allows early establishment of an agent who believes it is possible to reason and represent aspects of beliefs regarding reality, from the frame of reference of the agent. Therefore, propositions in this discussion involving belief, knowledge and probability, assume elemental obligations, whereby, they become the appropriate actions of the agent ( Tajfel, 1978; Pick & Lockman 1981; Kranjec, et al. 2012), and this allows us to maintain a business context within the core discussion (Marx, 1967;1978;1988; Weber,1925/1978). Moreover, to allow definitive axiomatisation, we recognise the logic of epistemic actions as a core aspect of this discussion, whereby, the altruistic cooperation and open conflict arena within an agent’s frame of reference, form intermediate and multi-agent belief revisions (Kranjec, 2005).

This now becomes a very useful and pragmatic stating point, since it allows us to recognise interpretations of familiarity as elements of knowledge in an agent’s interpretation of reality, particularly in the region of cooperative problem solving and decision making. This becomes a significant premise, since interpretation of this interaction could lead to a number of different or individual validity subscriptions or solicitations. Identification of this standpoint is also necessary so as not to coerce the discussion toward simplification of pluralistic leadership realms or modes of existence (Storsletten & jakobsen, 2015). Similarly, distract us towards contemporarily established Popper (1968) - Renyi (1955) axioms, discussed by Boutilier, (1995) and expanded upon by Arlo-Costa & Parikh (2005). Secondly, as a discussion intermediary, this can allow us to recognise the notion of a qualitative approach to a contemporary Kripke-model (Kripke 1959). This is important as a Kripke-style model proposes that specific quantitative mechanisms are the key elements by which multi-agent belief revision are based on.

Overview

We can now agree, or at least assume, plausible extensions and reciprocal elements of classical probability theory which now allow us to interpret belief revision(s) and correct probabilistic understanding(s) required by conditional beliefs (Segerberg, 1998; 1999). Consequently, simplification of context or category of meaning, possibilities and necessities becomes possible, wherein, plausibility tasks or probabilistic events become graded measures (Bennet , 2003). Whereby, allow us to interpret variations of classical belief revision theory, but intercede a multi-agent version. To underpin this simplistic, but interpretive stance, our discussion escalates the role and significance of validity (Fascia, 2015), within known knowledge transfer arenas (Argote et al. 2000) as this allows a foundation of significance to dominate any propositional inference. Additionally, it is perhaps unsurprising why interpretive positioning from contemporary literature leads to the view from (Dinur, 2011), who stresses that knowledge is a subjective perspective of an individual’s experience, and therefore, associated problems from a business environment are linked to the context of the knowledge itself. Whereby, our discussion assumes an interpretive congruence as an explanatory position, and this central locus becomes key for knowledge interpretation as it provides a valid frame of reference. Importantly, at this stage, establishment of simplistic context or category of meaning allow us to inaugurate boundaries of possibilities and necessities which, would otherwise have remained an overly complex endeavour. To help us gain a simplistic focus regarding this complex phenomena, within this discussion, we suggest that that agent can establish a real time state of validity, that is, an internal locus or state of belief, whereby, all iterations of probability relating to the transfer dilemma remain as valid, only if they are logical along a constant frame of reality. Thus, in this assemble, set G can assume a classical consequence operation Cn, wherein, the operation of expansion is concurrent with, and only with, the agent’s reality frame of reference Kranjec, et al. 2012). Thus, we can deduce that any new information within this reality frame becomes and expansion of set G, (current understanding of all available knowledge), but only from the agents frame of reference (reality). This view in itself becomes understandable if you also consider its interpretation of knowledge from the perspective of (Barnett at al., 2011). Their view indicates that an individual’s past experiences related to knowledge can contribute to the retaining of knowledge, and, that personal resources may contribute to the current state of understanding.

Business Context

To assist with this complex interaction, key elements of emphasis can be drawn from a POPC lens approach (Fascia, 2015), since this approach allows a multi view perspective to interweave between individual and group interpretations within a linear frame of reference (Fascia, 2016). This approach allows us to consider that form and location of the knowledge, the indication of knowledge-sharing capability, the relationship between the source and the recipient and the broader environment in which the transfer occurs, are all contributive factors in assessing success (Fascia, 2015). This view now gives the observer a similar frame of reference to the participating agents, whereby, any revision of a proposition within the reference framework allows interpretation from a predicate. Hence, satisfy the necessary axioms, both by contradiction and revision, and at the same time, consider facets of congruence and consistency within the agent’s interpretation Kranjec, et al. 2012). If the position previously discussed is the universal norm within generalist business management theory (White & Cicmil, 2016) , then one could legitimately ask, if the existence of knowledge that in itself depends on the interpretation of a foundational normality is true. Wherein, does the relationship of belief under this premise result from epistemic incongruence by assuming it is either connected on unconnected to the propositional outcome. If this rational intuition were collective, then, all knowledge must derive from a consequence of foundational ethics, which themselves cannot be refuted by accepted moral norms. This situation is perplexing to say the least and suggests that knowledge of the real world, particularly in a business context, is fallible and multifariously theory laden and allows several options when revising theory with a similar proposition, whereby, a willingness to accept presuppositions which is independent of any evidence. Thus, relating this position to knowledge value in a business context (White & Cicmil, 2016), it is important to consider the different beliefs asymmetries (Jehn et al., 2015) to which practitioners, as human beings, hold in two very distinct ways. These are basic and non-basic. (Lambek & American Mathematical Society., 2009). Regardless of indifference, there exists agreement within many research streams that organisational knowledge, even in this dissected form, is a recognised source of competitive advantage (Argote and Ingram 2000, p. 156; Storsletten & jakobsen, 2015) and it is this centralisation of assumption, which can be used to underpin significance in an organisational context.

Positioning

Thus, this formalised position allows us to highlight principles, evident in current theoretical or conditional interpretations (Spohn ,1988) in the context of or surrounding knowledge transfer mechanisms. In doing so, easily relate these to practical and recognisable business environments. For example, leadership, discussed in detail by Storsletten & jakobsen (2015). From this standpoint, we can then relate interpretation within an aperture of current thinking, wherein, theories of reality and change allow the formation of informal axiomatic theories of belief (Godel, 1932; Bull & Krister 1984), and therefore, remain perpetual or dynamic within a knowledge transfer scenario in a business context. {There is not enough time or space in this short discussion to go into an in-depth conversation around constructive or non- constructive truths}. However, unquestionably, it is only by analysing the somewhat complex processes which combine and surround daily working practices, that useful identification of normative and appropriate interaction between practitioners, during knowledge transfer, can be identified as useful or have value for an organisation. Nevertheless, analogous scrutiny at this point reflects egoistic formations of reality from a knowledge transfer practitioners perception, and can be thought of as a form of cautious belief (Rotaru et al., 2014) of any experience other than that relative to the knowledge transfer scenario. That is, continues to remain analogous to the knowledge transfer practitioner’s experiential accounts of knowledge, but, would be unable to validate the putative distinctive value of knowledge at a single reference point.